CLIMATE CHANGE

Energy Infrastructure 

Risks and Adaptation 

Efforts

Report to Congressional Requesters 

January 2014

GAO-14-74

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-74, a report to 

congressional requesters

January 2014

CLIMATE CHANGE

Energy Infrastructure Risks and Adaptation Efforts

Why GAO Did This Study

According to the NRC and the 

USGCRP, changes in the earth’s 

climate—including higher 

temperatures, changes in precipitation, 

rising sea levels, and increases in the 

severity and frequency of severe 

weather events—are under way and 

expected to grow more severe over 

time. These impacts present significant 

risks to the nation’s energy 

infrastructure. 

Economic losses arising from weatherrelated events—including floods, 

droughts, and storms—have been 

large and are increasing, according to 

USGCRP. Adaptation—an adjustment

to natural or human systems in 

response to actual or expected climate 

change—is a risk-management 

strategy to help protect vulnerable 

sectors and communities that might be 

affected by climate change.

GAO was asked to examine the 

vulnerability of the nation’s energy 

infrastructure to climate change 

impacts. This report examines: (1) 

what is known about potential impacts 

of climate change on U.S. energy

infrastructure; (2) measures that can

reduce climate-related risks and adapt 

energy infrastructure to climate 

change; and (3) the role of the federal 

government in adapting energy 

infrastructure and adaptation steps 

selected federal entities have taken.

GAO reviewed climate change 

assessments; analyzed relevant 

studies and agency documents; and 

interviewed federal agency officials 

and industry stakeholders, including 

energy companies at four sites that 

have implemented adaptive measures.

What GAO Found

According to assessments by the National Research Council (NRC) and the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), U.S. energy infrastructure is 

increasingly vulnerable to a range of climate change impacts—particularly 

infrastructure in areas prone to severe weather and water shortages. Climate 

changes are projected to affect infrastructure throughout all major stages of the 

energy supply chain, thereby increasing the risk of disruptions. For example:

• Resource extraction and processing infrastructure, including oil and natural 

gas platforms, refineries, and processing plants, is often located near the 

coast, making it vulnerable to severe weather and sea level rise.

• Fuel transportation and storage infrastructure, including pipelines, barges, 

railways and storage tanks, is susceptible to damage from severe weather, 

melting permafrost, and increased precipitation. 

• Electricity generation infrastructure, such as power plants, is vulnerable to 

severe weather or water shortages, which can interrupt operations.

• Electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure, including power lines

and substations, is susceptible to severe weather and may be stressed by 

rising demand for electricity as temperatures rise. 

In addition, impacts to infrastructure may also be amplified by a number of broad, 

systemic factors, including water scarcity, energy system interdependencies, 

increased electricity demand, and the compounding effects of multiple climate 

impacts. 

A number of measures exist to help reduce climate-related risks and adapt the 

nation’s energy systems to weather and climate-related impacts. These options 

generally fall into two broad categories—hardening and resiliency. Hardening

measures involve physical changes that improve the durability and stability of 

specific pieces of infrastructure—for example, elevating and sealing watersensitive equipment—making it less susceptible to damage. In contrast, 

resiliency measures allow energy systems to continue operating after damage 

and allow them to recover more quickly; for example, installing back-up 

generators to restore electricity more quickly after severe weather events.

In general, the federal government has a limited role in directly adapting energy 

infrastructure to the potential impacts of climate change, but key federal entities

can play important supporting roles that can influence private companies’ 

infrastructure decisions and these federal entities are initiating steps to begin 

adaptation efforts within their respective missions. Energy infrastructure 

adaptation is primarily accomplished through planning and investment decisions 

made by private companies that own the infrastructure. The federal government 

can influence companies’ decisions through providing information, regulatory 

oversight, technology research and development, and market incentives and 

disincentives. Key federal entities, such as the Department of Energy, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have also begun to take steps to 

address climate change risks—through project-specific activities such as 

research and development and evaluating siting and licensing decisions under 

their jurisdiction, as well as through broader agency-wide assessments and 

interagency cooperation.

View GAO-14-74. For more information, 

contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or 

ruscof@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Letter 1

Background 6

U.S. Energy Infrastructure Is Increasingly Vulnerable to a Range 

of Projected Climate-Related Impacts 12

Adaptive Measures Could Reduce Potential Climate Change 

Impacts on U.S. Energy Infrastructure 33

Federal Role in Directly Adapting Energy Infrastructure Is Limited, 

but Selected Federal Entities Can Play an Important Supporting 

Role in Decision Making and Are Initiating Actions toward 

Adaptation 45

Concluding Observations 55

Agency Comments and Our Evaluations 55

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 58

Appendix II Summaries of Selected Federal Roles in Energy Infrastructure 62

Appendix III Comments from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 67

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 68

Table

Table 1: Current and Projected Climate Changes in the United 

States 7

Figures

Figure 1: Illustration of U.S. Energy Supply Chain 9

Figure 2: Active Oil and Gas Platforms in the Central and Western 

Gulf of Mexico 13

Figure 3: Damage to Mars and Typhoon Platforms from 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 2005 14

Figure 4: Pipeline Damages Reported for Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita, 2005 17

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 5: Examples of Weather-Related Electrical Grid 

Disturbances 25

Figure 6: Weather-Related Grid Disruptions, 2000-2012 26

Figure 7: Water Use by the U.S. Energy Sector 29

Figure 8: Historical Increases in Cooling Demand and Decreases 

in Heating Demand 32

Figure 9: The Gasoline Supply Chain 35

Figure 10: Fallen Transmission Lines after Hurricane Rita 38

Figure 11: Gateway Generating Station 40

Figure 12: Colonial’s Portable Generators 42

Figure 13: Proposed Turkey Point Nuclear Units 6 and 7 44
Page iii GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Abbreviations

AWF America’s Wetland Foundation

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 

CBO Congressional Budget Office

CEA Council of Economic Advisers

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CSP concentrated solar power

DOE Department of Energy

EIA Energy Information Administration

ENO Entergy New Orleans

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FPL Florida Power and Light

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

NCDC National Climate Data Center

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRC National Research Council

NWP National Water Program

NWS National Weather Service

NYH New York Harbor

ONRR Office of Natural Resources Revenue

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company

PMA Power Marketing Administration

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

UN United Nations

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

January 31, 2014

Congressional Requesters

Climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue that could pose 

significant risks to the nation’s energy infrastructure. According to 

assessments by the National Research Council (NRC)1 and the United 

States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP),2 the effects of 

climate change are already under way and are projected to continue.3

 1

NRC is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of 

Engineering. Through its independent, expert reports; workshops; and other scientific 

activities, NRC’s mission is to improve government decision making and public policy, 

increase public understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of 

knowledge in matters involving science engineering, technology, and health.

Global atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases have increased 

markedly over the last 200 years which has contributed to a warming of 

the earth’s climate as well as increasing the acidity of oceans. Changes 

observed in the United States include more intense weather and storm 

events, heat waves, floods, and droughts; rising sea levels; and changing 

patterns of rainfall. These trends, which are expected to continue, can 

adversely affect energy infrastructure such as natural gas and oil 

production platforms, pipelines, power plants, and electricity distribution 

lines, according to NRC and USGCRP, thus making it more difficult to 

ensure a reliable energy supply to the nation’s homes and businesses.

2

USGCRP coordinates and integrates the activities of 13 federal agencies that conduct 

research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. 

USGCRP began as a presidential initiative in 1989, and the program was formally 

authorized by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-606, 

title I, 104 Stat. 3096-3104 (1990), codified at 15 U.S.C §§ 2931-2938). USGCRPparticipating agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, 

Interior, Health and Human Services, State, and Transportation; the U.S. Agency for 

International Development; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration; the National Science Foundation; and the 

Smithsonian Institution.

3

According to USGCRP, assessments assist decision making by surveying, integrating, 

and synthesizing science across sectors and regions. The key assessments used in this 

report compile information from many studies involving authors from academia; local, 

state, and federal government; the private sector; and the nonprofit sector. (See 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology section for more information about the assessments 

used in this report.) 
Page 2 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Energy infrastructure can be affected by both acute weather events and 

long-term changes in the climate, according to NRC and the Department 

of Energy (DOE). In particular, energy infrastructure located along the 

coast is at risk from increasingly intense storms, which can substantially 

disrupt oil and gas production and cause temporary fuel or electricity 

shortages. In 2012, for example, storm surge and high winds from 

Hurricane Sandy—an acute weather event-–downed power lines, flooded 

electrical substations, and damaged or temporarily shut down several 

power plants and ports, according to DOE, leaving over 8 million 

customers without power.4 5

As observed by USGCRP, the impacts and financial costs of weather 

disasters—resulting from floods, drought, and other weather events—are 

expected to increase in significance as what are historically considered to 

be “rare” events become more common and intense due to climate 

change.

Long-term changes in the climate could also 

impact energy infrastructure, according to USGCRP and DOE. For 

example, warming air temperatures may reduce the efficiency of power 

plants while increasing the overall demand for electricity, potentially 

creating supply challenges. In addition, while many climate change 

impacts are projected to be regional in nature, the interconnectedness of 

the nation’s energy system means that regional vulnerabilities may have 

wide-ranging implications for energy production and use, ultimately 

affecting transportation, industrial, agricultural, and other critical sectors of 

the economy that require reliable energy.

6

 4 Hurricane Sandy has also been popularly referred to as “Superstorm” Sandy due to the 

confluence of rare meteorological conditions that contributed to the widespread 

destruction of property and infrastructure in 2012. 

According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s (NOAA) National Climate Data Center (NCDC), the 

United States experienced 11 extreme weather and climate events in 

5 In response to extensive power outages during Sandy affecting millions of residents and 

resulting in substantial economic loss to communities, the federal government developed 

a Sandy Rebuilding Task Force that developed several recommendations regarding the 

alignment of investments in the Nation’s energy infrastructure with the goal of improved 

resilience and national policy initiatives regarding climate change, transparency, and 

innovative technology deployment.

6

Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., Global Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 

otherwise known as the 2009 National Climate Assessment.
Page 3 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

2012, each causing more than $1 billion in losses.7 Two of the most 

significant weather events during 2012 were Hurricane Sandy, estimated 

at $65 billion, and an extended drought that covered over half of the 

contiguous United States estimated at $30 billion. While it is difficult to 

attribute any individual weather event to climate change, these events 

provide insight into the potential climate-related vulnerabilities the United 

States faces. In this regard, both private sector firms and federal agencies 

have documented an increase in weather-related losses. A 2013 study by 

the reinsurance provider Munich Re, for example, indicated that, in 2012, 

insured losses in the United States totaled $58 billion—far above the 

2000 to 2011 average loss of $27 billion. The energy sector often bears a 

significant portion of these costs, according to USGCRP; for example, 

direct costs to the energy industry following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

in 2005 were estimated at around $15 billion.8

We have reported in the past that policymakers increasingly view climate 

change adaptation—defined as adjustments to natural or human systems 

in response to actual or expected climate change—as a risk management 

strategy to protect vulnerable sectors and communities that might be 

 7

Since 1980, NOAA’s NCDC has provided aggregated loss estimates for major weather 

and climate events, including tropical cyclones, floods, droughts, heat waves, severe local 

storms (tornado, hail, and wind damage), wildfires, crop freeze events and winter storms. 

The loss estimates reflect direct effects of weather and climate events and constitute 

total—insured and uninsured—losses. Specifically, estimates include physical damage to 

buildings; material assets; time element losses, such as hotel costs for loss of living 

quarters; vehicles; public and private infrastructure; and agricultural assets, such as 

buildings, machinery, and livestock. Estimates do not include losses to natural 

capital/assets, health care related losses, or values associated with loss of life. NOAA’s 

NCDC defines climate as a statistical analysis of weather. Additional information available 

at NOAA’s NCDC here. 

8 U.S. Climate Change Science Program (now known as USGCRP) Draft Third National 

Climate Assessment Report, Chapter 4 – Energy Supply and Use (January 2013).

USGCRP, under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, periodically conducts a 

National Climate Assessment to inform the nation about observed climate changes and 

anticipated trends. The Third National Climate Assessment is scheduled to be completed 

in early 2014; as a result, we have used the draft 2013 assessment for the purposes of 

this report. The draft 2013 assessment includes information from 240 authors drawn from 

academia; local, state, and Federal government; the private sector; and the nonprofit 

sector. The draft National Climate Assessment is not a finalized document and is subject 

to change as a result of comments from and review by the public, external entities, and 

the Federal Government. For more information or to access these assessments see 

http://www.globalchange.gov.”
Page 4 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

affected by changes in the climate.9 State and local governments and the 

private sector play key roles in planning and implementing energy 

infrastructure, and some are already engaged in various types of 

adaptation measures, including vulnerability assessments, strengthening 

or relocating vulnerable infrastructure, deploying more climate-resilient 

technologies, and improving electricity grid operations and 

responsiveness. While some of these measures may be costly, there is a 

growing recognition that the cost of inaction could be greater. As stated in 

a 2010 NRC report, increasing the nation’s ability to respond to a 

changing climate can be viewed as an insurance policy against climate 

risks.10 To that end, emerging federal efforts are under way to facilitate 

more informed decisions about adaptation. However, we have reported 

these federal efforts have been largely carried out in an ad hoc manner, 

with little coordination across federal agencies or with state and local 

governments.11 In 2013, our most recent update to the list of programs at 

high risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, we identified the 

federal government’s management of climate change risks as an area in 

need of fundamental transformation due to the fiscal exposure it 

presents.12

In this context, you asked us to examine the vulnerability of the nation’s 

energy infrastructure to climate change. This report examines: (1) what is 

known about the potential impacts of climate change on U.S. energy 

infrastructure, (2) measures that can reduce climate-related risks and 

adapt the energy infrastructure to climate change, and (3) the role of the 

federal government in adapting energy infrastructure to the potential 

impacts of climate change, including what steps selected federal entities 

have taken towards adaptation.

 9 See GAO, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support 

Local Infrastructure Decision Makers, GAO-13-242 (Washington, D.C.: Apr 12, 2013) and 

GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government 

Officials Make More Informed Decisions, GAO-10-113 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009).

10 NRC, America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, 

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

11 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013). 

Every 2 years at the start of a new Congress, GAO calls attention to agencies and 

program areas that are high risk due to their vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement, or are most in need of transformation. 

12 See GAO-13-283.
Page 5 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

To examine what is known about the impacts of climate change on U.S. 

energy infrastructure, we reviewed climate change impact assessments 

from the NRC, USGCRP and federal agencies.13 We examined potential 

impacts to the following infrastructure categories, representing four main 

stages of the energy supply chain:14

To identify and examine measures that can reduce climate-related risks 

and adapt energy infrastructure to climate change, we analyzed relevant 

studies and government reports and interviewed knowledgeable 

stakeholders including representatives from professional associations 

such as the American Gas Association and the National Association of 

State Energy Officials. We identified and selected a nonprobability 

sample of four energy companies where decision makers were taking 

steps to adapt their energy infrastructure to the potential impacts of 

climate change: Colonial Pipeline Company, Entergy Corporation, Florida 

Power and Light Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. To 

select our sample we conducted a literature review and interviewed 

officials from research organizations, such as the Environmental and 

Energy Study Institute and the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 

Our sample selection reflects a range of geographic locations and 

climate-related risks, as well as infrastructure used in three of the four 

stages of the energy supply chain.

(1) resource extraction and 

processing infrastructure, (2) fuel transportation and storage 

infrastructure,(3) electricity generation infrastructure, and (4) electricity 

transmission and distribution infrastructure. We also assessed broad, 

systemic factors that may amplify climate change impacts to energy 

infrastructure.

15

 13According to USGCRP, assessments are tools to survey, integrate, and synthesize 

science. For more information about USGCRP assessments, click here. For objective 1 of 

this report, we generally used NRC’s 2010 assessment, three USGCRP assessments 

(2007, 2009, and 2013), and DOE’s assessments in 2010 and 2013, unless otherwise 

indicated. Citations for these assessments can be found in appendix I. 

14 We developed these four categories as a means of grouping similar processes 

together. Actual infrastructure and methods used to produce and distribute energy can 

vary.

15 Because this was a nonprobability sample, findings from our examples cannot be 

generalized to all U.S. energy infrastructure; rather, they provide illustrative information 

about energy companies for which adaptation measures have been undertaken.
Page 6 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

To examine the role of the federal government in adaptation and steps 

selected federal entities have taken, we identified federal agencies with 

key responsibilities related to energy infrastructure by reviewing relevant 

literature, including previous GAO reports, and interviewing agency 

officials and knowledgeable stakeholder groups.16 We compiled an initial 

list of 15 federal entities that had a connection to energy infrastructure 

and then narrowed the list to the five that have the most direct influence 

on energy infrastructure adaptation decisions: DOE, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).17

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to January 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix I provides a 

more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.

This section describes: (1) potential climate change impacts in the United 

States, (2) energy infrastructure in the United States, and (3) climate 

change adaptation as a risk management tool.

According to assessments by USGCRP, NRC, and others, changes in the 

earth’s climate attributable to increased concentrations of greenhouse 

gases may have significant environmental and economic impacts in the 

United States. These changes, summarized in Table 1, involve a wide 

range of current and projected impacts. While uncertainty exists about the 

 16 When identifying agencies with key responsibilities related to energy infrastructure we 

focused on agencies with a direct role in overseeing and developing activities within the 

energy sector.

17 NERC is not a federal agency; it is a nonprofit entity responsible for the reliability of the 

bulk power system (the generation and high-voltage transmission portions of the electricity 

grid) in North America (primarily the United States and Canada), but it is subject to the 

oversight of FERC and Canadian regulatory authorities. Because of NERC’s important 

role with the electricity grid throughout the United States and oversight by FERC we will, 

hereafter, refer to NERC as a “federal entity.”

Background

Observed and Projected 

Climate Change Impacts 

in the United States
Page 7 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

exact nature, magnitude, and timing of climate change, over the next 

several decades, these and other impacts are projected to continue and 

likely accelerate, with effects varying considerably by region, according to 

NRC assessments. Because emitted greenhouse gases remain in the 

atmosphere for extended periods of time, some changes to the climate 

are expected to occur as a result of emissions to date, regardless of 

future efforts to control emissions.18,

19

Table 1: Current and Projected Climate Changes in the United States 

Category Observed climate changes Projected climate changes

Temperature • U.S. average annual temperature has risen 

about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since record 

keeping began in 1895; more than 80 percent of 

this increase has occurred since 1980. The most 

recent decade was the nation’s warmest on 

record. 

• The frost-free season has been lengthening 

since the 1980s, and rising temperatures are 

reducing ice volume on land, lakes, and sea. 

Minimum Arctic sea ice has decreased by more 

than 40 percent since satellite records began in 

1978.

a

• U.S. temperatures are expected to continue to rise, 

with varying impacts by region. In the next few 

decades, warming of 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit is 

expected for most parts of the nation.

• The frost-free season is expected to increase by a 

month or more and is projected to occur across 

most of the United States by the end of the century.

• Antarctic sea ice is projected to decline in future

decades

Precipitation

b,c

• Data indicate an overall upward trend in annual 

precipitation across most of the United States, 

with an average 5 percent increase since 1900.

• Heavy downpours are increasing in most regions 

of the United States, especially over the last 

three to five decades. 

• Projections of future precipitation indicate that 

northern areas are expected to continue to become 

wetter, and southern areas, particularly in the 

Southwest, are expected to become drier.

• Further increases in the frequency and intensity of 

extreme precipitation events are projected for most 

U.S. areas.

 18 According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, about 50 percent of 

carbon dioxide emitted by human activity will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 

years, and a further 30 percent will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20 

percent may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. USGCRP estimates 

that another 0.5 degree Fahrenheit increase would occur even if all emissions from human 

activities were suddenly stopped.

19 See GAO, Technology Assessment: Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future 

Directions, and Potential Responses, GAO-11-71 (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2011) for a 

depiction of the global carbon cycle changes over time and the global average “energy 

budget” of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Page 8 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Category Observed climate changes Projected climate changes

Sea level rise and 

coastal erosion

• Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches 

since reliable record keeping began in 1880.

• The current rate of global sea level rise is faster 

than at any time in the past 2000 years.

• Sea levels are projected to continue to rise, but the 

extent is not well-understood.

• In the next several decades, sea level rise and land 

subsidence could combine with storm surges and 

high tides to increase flooding in coastal regions.

d

Extreme weather 

events and storms

• Certain types of extreme weather events, such 

as heat waves, floods, and droughts, have 

become more frequent and intense in some 

regions.

• In the eastern Pacific, the strongest hurricanes 

have become stronger since the 1980s, while 

the total number of storms has declined.

• The intensity of the strongest hurricanes is projected 

to continue as the oceans continue to warm, causing 

wind, precipitation, and storm surges.

• Other trends in severe storms, including the number 

of hurricanes and intensity and frequency of 

tornadoes are uncertain and remain under study.

Sources: GAO analysis of USGCRP’s 2009 and 2013 draft National Climate Assessments and NRC’s America’s Climate Choices: 

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, 2010.

a

A report by the United Kingdom notes global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 

1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. This has prompted 

speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much 

smaller than predicted. Others maintain that this is a temporary pause in global temperatures and that 

they will again rise at rates seen previously. United Kingdom Met Office, Observing Changes in the 

Climate System: The Recent Pause in Global Warming (1) What do observations of the climate 

system tell us? (United Kingdom: July 2013).

b

U.S. Climate Change Science Program (now known as USGCRP), Global Climate Change Impacts 

in the United States, Draft 2013 National Climate Assessment (Washington, D.C., 2013).

c

Liu, J, Judith A. Curry, Accelerated Warming in the Southern Ocean and its Impacts on the 

Hydrological Cycle and Sea Ice. School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of 

Technology (Atlanta, GA: 2010).

d Sea level has been rising, and at an increasing rate, but understanding all of the dynamics involved 

is not sufficiently complete to allow for an accurate prediction of the likely total extent of sea level rise 

this century. For example, scientists have a well-developed understanding of the contributions of 

thermal expansion of the oceans due to warming. However, other changes, such as ice sheet 

dynamics, are less well-understood , and while this variable is expected to make a significant 

contribution to sea level rise, quantifying that contribution is difficult.

U.S. energy infrastructure comprises four key components: (1) resource 

extraction and processing infrastructure, such as equipment to extract 

and refine coal, natural gas and oil; (2) fuel transportation and storage 

infrastructure, including physical networks of natural gas and oil pipelines; 

(3) electricity generation infrastructure, including coal-fired, gas-fired, and 

nuclear power plants, as well as renewable energy infrastructure; and (4) 

electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure, such as power lines 

that transport energy to consumers (see fig. 1). According to DOE, the 

energy supply chain has grown increasingly complex and interdependent.

In total, the U.S. energy supply chain includes approximately 2.6 million 

miles of interstate and intrastate pipelines, 6,600 operational power 

plants, about 144 operable refineries, and about 160,000 miles of 

transmission lines. Collectively, this infrastructure enables the United 

U.S. Energy Infrastructure
Page 9 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

States to meet industrial, commercial, and residential demands, as well 

as to support transportation and communication networks.

Figure 1: Illustration of U.S. Energy Supply Chain
Page 10 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

The nation’s energy supply chain is designed to respond to weather 

variability, such as changes in temperature that affect load or rapid 

changes in renewable resource availability that affect supply. These 

short-term fluctuations are managed by designing redundancy into energy 

systems and using tools to predict, evaluate, and optimize response 

strategies in the near term. For example, electrical utilities are beginning 

to deploy automated feeder switches that open or close in response to a 

fault condition identified locally or to a control signal sent from another 

location. When a fault occurs, automated feeder switching immediately 

reroutes power among distribution circuits isolating only the portion of a 

circuit where the fault has occurred. This results in a significant reduction 

in the number of customers affected by an outage and the avoidance of 

costs typically borne by customers when outages occur, according to a 

2013 White House report.20

However, most energy infrastructure was engineered and built for our 

past or current climate and may not be resilient to continued and 

expected increases in the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather 

events and overall continued weather and climate change in the longterm. Further, this infrastructure is aging, according to DOE. For example, 

most of the U.S. electricity transmission system was designed to last 40 

to 50 years; yet, in some parts of the country, it is now 100 years old. The 

nation’s oil and gas infrastructure is also aging and about half of the 

nation’s oil and gas pipelines were built in the 1950s and 1960s. Changes 

in climate have the potential to further strain these already aging 

components by forcing them to operate outside of the ranges for which 

they were designed. DOE reported that aging infrastructure is more 

susceptible than newer assets to the hurricane-related hazards of storm 

surge, flooding, and extreme winds, and retrofitting this existing 

infrastructure with more climate-resilient technologies remains a 

challenge.

 20 President’s Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Benefits of Increasing Electric 

Grid Resilience to Weather Outages (Washington, D.C.: August 2013).
Page 11 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Climate change adaptation addresses the vulnerability of natural and 

human systems to changes in the climate and focuses on reducing the 

damage resulting from those changes.21 According to DOE, two broad 

ways to reduce the potential impacts of climate change on energy 

infrastructure are to invest in hardening and resiliency efforts. DOE 

defines hardening as physical changes to infrastructure to make it less 

susceptible to storm damage, such as high winds, flooding, or flying 

debris. DOE defines resiliency as the ability to recover quickly from 

damage to facilities’ components or to any of the external systems on 

which they depend.22 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) noted more flexible and resilient systems have greater adaptive 

capacity and are better suited to handle a changing climate.23

Additionally, adaptation requires making policy and management 

decisions that cut across traditional economic sectors, jurisdictional 

boundaries, and levels of government. While most energy infrastructure is 

owned by the private sector, both state and federal governments have 

roles in energy infrastructure siting, permitting, and regulation. For 

example, state public utility commissions are responsible for setting the 

rates for electric service within each state, and owners of energy 

infrastructure must work with state commissions in order to request rate 

increases to cover the cost of hardening their infrastructure. Owners of 

energy infrastructure that spans more than one state, such as natural gas 

or oil pipelines or electric power lines, may have to work with multiple 

state commissions on rate and licensing matters and with FERC 

regarding the rates, terms, and conditions of sales of electricity and 

transmission in interstate commerce.

 21 See GAO 13-242.

22 Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security’s recent 2013 National Infrastructure 

Protection Plan (Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience) defines 

resilience as the “ability to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions and withstand 

and recover rapidly from disruptions...”

23 The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews 

and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socioeconomic information 

produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It neither conducts 

any research nor monitors climate related data or parameters.

Climate Change 

Adaptation as a Risk 

Management Tool
Page 12 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

According to USGCRP, NRC, and others, climate change poses risks to 

energy infrastructure at all four key stages in the supply chain. In addition, 

broad, systemic factors such as water scarcity and energy system 

interdependencies could amplify these impacts.

Impacts from climate change can affect infrastructure throughout the four 

major stages of the energy supply chain: (1) resource extraction and 

processing infrastructure, (2) fuel transportation and storage 

infrastructure, (3) electricity generation infrastructure, and (4) electricity 

transmission and distribution infrastructure.

Much of the infrastructure used to extract, refine, and process, and 

prospect for fuels—including natural gas and oil platforms, oil refineries, 

and natural gas processing plants—is located offshore or near the coast, 

making it particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, extreme weather, and 

other impacts, according to USGCRP and DOE assessments. The Gulf 

Coast, for example, is home to nearly 4,000 oil and gas platforms (see fig. 

2), many of which are at risk of damage or disruption due to high winds 

and storm surges at increasingly high sea levels.24

 24According to a 2011 U.S. Geological Survey paper, these platforms were not designed 

to accommodate a permanent increase in sea level. See Burkett, Virginia, U.S. Geological 

Survey, “Global Climate Change Implications for Coastal and Offshore Oil and Gas 

Development,” Energy Policy 39 (2011).

Low-lying coastal 

areas are also home to many oil refineries, coal import/export facilities, 

and natural gas processing facilities that are similarly vulnerable to 

inundation, shoreline erosion, and storm surges. Given that the Gulf 

Coast is home to approximately half of the nation’s crude oil and natural 

gas production—as well as nearly half of its refining capacity—regional 

severe weather events can have significant implications for energy 

supplies nationwide. In 2005, for example, high winds and flooding from 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused extensive damage to the region’s 

natural gas and oil infrastructure, destroying more than 100 platforms, 

U.S. Energy 

Infrastructure Is 

Increasingly 

Vulnerable to a 

Range of Projected 

Climate-Related 

Impacts

Climate Change Poses 

Risks to Energy 

Infrastructure Across the 

Four Key Stages in the 

Supply Chain

Climate Change Can Impact 

Resource Extraction and 

Processing Infrastructure
Page 13 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

damaging 558 pipelines, and shutting down numerous refineries, 

effectively halting nearly all oil and gas production for several weeks. (Fig. 

3 illustrates damage to the Mars and Typhoon deepwater platforms 

following the 2005 hurricanes.) More recently, Hurricane Sandy caused 

flooding and outages at refineries and petroleum terminals in the New 

York Harbor area, according to a 2013 DOE report comparing the impacts 

of northeast hurricanes on energy infrastructure, depressing regional oil 

supply and leading to temporary price increases.25

Figure 2: Active Oil and Gas Platforms in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico

Note: Nearly 4,000 active oil and gas platforms are located in the central and western Gulf of Mexico.

 25U.S. Department of Energy, Comparing the Impacts of Northeast Hurricanes on Energy 

Infrastructure (April 2013).
Page 14 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 3: Damage to Mars and Typhoon Platforms from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 

2005

Storm-related impacts on natural gas and oil production infrastructure can 

also have significant economic implications. Losses related to 

infrastructure damage can be extensive, particularly given the high value 

and long life span of natural gas and oil platforms, refineries, and 

processing plants. For example, a report by Entergy Corporation, an 

integrated energy company serving a number of southern states, 

estimated its infrastructure restoration costs at around $1.5 billion 

following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A 2009 DOE assessment reported 
Page 15 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

that some damages resulting from the 2005 hurricanes were too costly to 

repair; as a result, a number of platforms were sunk, and significant crude 

oil production capacity was lost.26

Warming temperatures and water availability may also present challenges 

for the nation’s extraction and processing infrastructure. For example, 

according to USGCRP, climate change impacts have already been 

observed in Alaska, where thawing permafrost has substantially 

shortened the season during which oil and gas exploration and extraction 

equipment can be operated on the tundra.

In addition to causing physical damage, 

increasingly intense severe weather events can disrupt operations and 

decrease fuel supplies, resulting in broader economic losses for 

businesses and industries that depend on these resources. According to 

USGCRP assessments, damage to key infrastructure—especially to 

refineries, natural gas processing plants, and petroleum terminals—can 

cause fuel prices to spike across the country, as evidenced by Hurricanes 

Katrina and Sandy. Flood damage is the most common and costliest type 

of storm damage to oil production infrastructure, resulting in the longest 

disruptions, according to DOE’s 2010 report.

27

USGCRP assessments identified several ways in which climate change 

can affect fuel transportation infrastructure, including pipeline systems 

that carry natural gas and oil; trucks, railways, and barges that transport 

coal, oil and petroleum products; as well as storage facilities, such as 

aboveground tanks, underground salt caverns, and aquifers.

Oil refineries around the 

nation are also potentially at risk, according to USGCRP; they require 

both significant quantities of water and access to electricity, making them 

vulnerable to drought and power outages.

28

 26 U.S. Department of Energy, Comparing the Impacts of the 2005 and 2008 Hurricanes 

on U.S. Energy Infrastructure (February 2009).

27By way of protection, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources limits the amount of 

travel on the tundra. Over the past 30 years, the number of days where travel is permitted 

has dropped from more than 200 to 100, thereby reducing by at least half the number of 

days that natural gas and oil exploration and extraction equipment can be used.

28Crude oil and petroleum products are transported by rail, barge systems, pipelines, and 

tanker trucks. Coal is transported by rail, barge, truck, and pipeline. Corn-based ethanol, 

blended with gasoline, is largely shipped by rail, while bioenergy feedstock transport relies 

on barge, rail, and truck freight.

Climate Change Can Impact 

Fuel Transportation and 

Storage Infrastructure
Page 16 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Natural gas and oil pipelines, which generally require electricity to 

operate, are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events, according 

to DOE. The U.S. pipeline system is a complex network comprising over 

2.6 million miles of natural gas and oil pipelines, some of which have 

already been affected by past weather events. For example, electric 

power outages from Hurricane Katrina caused three critical pipelines—

which cumulatively transport 125 million gallons of fuel each day—to shut 

down for two full days and operate at reduced power for about two weeks, 

leading to fuel shortages and temporary price spikes. In addition to the 

power outage, the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management 

Service reported that approximately 457 pipelines were damaged during 

the hurricanes, interrupting production for months (see fig. 4).29 More

recently, in July 2011, ExxonMobil’s Silvertip pipeline in Montana, buried 

beneath the Yellowstone riverbed, was torn apart by flood-caused debris, 

spilling oil into the river and disrupting crude oil transport in the region, 

with damages estimated at $135 million, according to the Department of 

Transportation.30

 29 The Department of the Interior’s bureaus are responsible for overseeing the processes 

that oil and gas companies must follow when leasing, drilling, and producing oil and gas 

from federal leases. The Minerals Management Service, a bureau within the Department 

of the Interior, was responsible for managing offshore activities and collecting royalties for 

oil and gas leases until May 2010, when the bureau was reorganized. Under this 

reorganization, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) now oversee offshore oil and gas 

activities and the newly established Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) is 

responsible for collecting royalties on oil and gas produced from both onshore and 

offshore federal leases.

Storm surge flooding can also affect aboveground fuel 

storage tanks, according to DOE; for example, tanks not fully filled can 

drift off of their platforms or become corroded by trapped salt water.

30U.S. Department of Transportation, ExxonMobil Silvertip Pipeline Crude Oil Release into 

the Yellowstone River in Laurel, MT on 7/1/2011, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety, Western Region.
Page 17 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 4: Pipeline Damages Reported for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 2005

In addition to pipelines, rail, barge, and tanker trucks also play critical 

roles in transporting fuel across the country. According to USGCRP and 

DOE assessments, fuel transport by rail and barge can be affected when 

water levels in rivers and ports drop too low, such as during a drought, or 

too high, such as during a storm surge. During the 2012 drought, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers reported groundings of traffic along the 

Mississippi River due to low water depths, preventing barge shipments of 

coal and petroleum products. Lower water levels can also affect the 

amount of fuel the barges are capable of hauling; according to DOE’s 

2013 assessment, a one-inch drop in river level can reduce a barge’s 

towing capacity by 255 tons.

Fuel transportation infrastructure can also be affected by rising 

temperatures, according to assessments by DOE and USGCRP. For 

example, in 2012, Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge produced nearly four

feet of floodwaters, damaging or temporarily shutting down the Port of 
Page 18 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

New York and New Jersey, as well as electrical systems, highways, and 

rail track. Disruptions in barge transportation due to extreme weather can 

also present challenges for areas such as Florida, which are nearly 

entirely dependent on barges for fuel delivery. Intense storms and 

flooding can also wash out rail lines—which in many regions follow 

riverbeds—and impede the delivery of coal to power plants. According to 

DOE, flooding of rail lines has already been a problem both in the 

Appalachian region and along the Mississippi River. The rerouting that 

occurs as a result of such flooding can cost millions of dollars and can 

delay coal deliveries.

Colder climates present a different set of risks for fuel transportation 

infrastructure, according to DOE and USGCRP assessments. For 

example, in Alaska—where average temperatures have risen about twice 

as much as the rest of the nation—thawing permafrost is already causing 

pipeline, rail, and pavement displacements, requiring reconstruction of 

key facilities and raising maintenance costs.31 Melting sea ice caused by 

warmer temperatures can result in more icebergs and ice movement, 

which in turn can damage barges transporting natural gas and oil. On the 

other hand, decreasing sea ice could also generate some benefits for the 

natural gas and oil sectors; USGCRP reports that warmer temperatures 

are expected to improve shipping accessibility in some areas of the Arctic 

Basin, including oil and gas transport by sea. 32

According to assessments by USGCRP, DOE, and others, climate 

change will have a significant impact on the nation’s electricity generation 

facilities, including fossil fuel and nuclear power plants—which together 

produce the vast majority of the nation’s electricity—as well as renewable 

energy infrastructure such as wind turbines and hydropower dams.

Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. According to USGCRP, climate 

change is expected to have potentially significant consequences for fossil 

fuel and nuclear power plants. Fossil fuel plants—which burn coal, natural 

 31As permafrost thaws, the tundra loses its weight-bearing capabilities, according to DOE. 

Risks to onshore fossil fuel development could include the loss of access roads built on 

permafrost, loss of opportunities to establish new roads, problems with pipelines buried in 

permafrost, and reduced load-bearing capacity of buildings and structures.

32This improved accessibility will not be uniform throughout different regions, according to 

USGCRP, and extraction and exploration equipment may have to be redesigned to 

accommodate the new environment.

Climate Change Can 

Impact Electricity 

Generation Infrastructure
Page 19 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

gas, or oil—are susceptible to much of the same impacts as nuclear 

power plants, according to USGCRP and DOE, including diminishing 

water supplies, warming temperatures, and severe weather, among 

others.

According to USGCRP, episodic and long-lasting water shortages and 

elevated water temperatures may constrain electricity generation in many 

regions of the United States. As currently designed, most fossil fuel and 

nuclear plants require significant amounts of water to generate, cool, and 

condense steam. Energy production, together with thermoelectric power, 

accounted for approximately 11 percent of U.S. water consumption in 

2005, according to one study33, second only to irrigation.34 Issues related 

to water already pose a range of challenges for existing power plants, as 

illustrated by the following examples cited by DOE35

• Insufficient amounts of water. In 2007, a drought affecting the

southeastern United States caused water levels in some rivers, lakes 

and reservoirs to drop below the level of intake valves that supply 

cooling water to power plants, causing some plants to stop or reduce 

power production.

:

• Outgoing water too warm. In 2007, 2010, and 2011, the Tennessee 

Valley Authority had to reduce power output from its Browns Ferry 

Nuclear Plant in Alabama because the temperature of the river was 

 33 Elcock, D., “Future U.S. Water Consumption: The Role of Energy Production,” Journal 

of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 46, no. 3 (2010): 447-460.

34 Water use by thermoelectric power plants can be generally characterized as 

consumption, withdrawal, and discharge. Water consumption refers to the portion of the 

water withdrawn that is no longer available to be returned to a water source, such as when 

it has evaporated. Water withdrawals refer to water removed from the ground or diverted 

from a surface water source—for example, an ocean, river, or lake—for use by the plant. 

For many thermoelectric power plants, much of the water they withdraw is later 

discharged, although often at higher temperatures. According to the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), in terms of water withdrawal, thermoelectric power was the largest source 

of water withdrawals (49 percent) in 2005, followed by irrigation at 31 percent. The amount 

of water discharged from a thermoelectric power plant depends on a number of factors, 

including the type of cooling technology used, plant economics, and environmental 

regulations. Some “once-through” systems can harm aquatic life—such as fish, 

crustaceans, and marine mammals—by pulling them into cooling systems or trapping 

them against water intake screens. The habitats of aquatic life can also be adversely 

affected by warm water discharges.

35DOE, U.S. Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and Extreme Weather, 

DOE/PE-0013 (Washington, D.C.: July 2013).
Page 20 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

too high to receive discharge water without raising ecological risks; 

the cost of replacing lost power was estimated at $50 million.36

• Incoming water too warm. In August 2012, Dominion Resources’

Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Connecticut shut down one reactor 

because the intake cooling water, withdrawn from the Long Island 

Sound, exceeded temperature specifications. The resulting loss of 

power production was estimated at several million dollars.

USGCRP and NRC assessments project that water issues will continue to 

constrain electricity production at existing facilities as temperatures 

increase and precipitation patterns change. Many of these risks are 

regional in nature; research by the Electric Power Research Institute

(EPRI), for example, indicates that approximately 25 percent of existing 

electric generation in the United States is located in counties projected to 

be at high or moderate water supply sustainability risk in 2030.37 Water

availability concerns are already affecting the development of new power 

plants, according to USGCRP’s 2009 assessment, as plans to develop 

new plants are delayed or halted at increasing rates. Moreover, as 

demands for energy and water increase, competition between the energy, 

industrial, and agricultural sectors, among others, sectors could place 

additional strain on the nation’s power plants, potentially affecting the 

reliability of future electric power generation.38

USGCRP and DOE assessments also indicate that higher air and water 

temperatures may diminish the efficiency by which power plants convert 

fuel to electricity. A power plant’s operating efficiency is affected by the 

performance of the cooling system, among other things. According to 

USGCRP, warming temperatures may decrease the efficiency of power 

plant cooling technologies, thereby reducing overall electricity generation. 

While the magnitude of these effects will vary based on a number of 

 36To prevent hot water from doing harm to fish and other wildlife, power plants typically 

are not allowed to discharge cooling water above a certain temperature. When power 

plants reach those limits, they can be forced to reduce power production or shut down.

37EPRI. 2011. Water Use for Electricity Generation and Other Sectors: Recent Changes 

(1985–2005) and Future Projections (2005–2030). 1023676. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power 

Research Institute (November 10, 2011). 

http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001023

676.

38See the “Water Availability” section of this section for further information on competing 

demands for water.
Page 21 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

plant-and site-specific factors, USGCRP assessments suggest that even 

small changes in efficiency could have significant implications for 

electricity supply at a national scale. For example, an average reduction 

of 1 percent in electricity generated by fossil fuel plants nationwide would 

mean a loss of 25 billion kilowatt-hours per year, about the amount of 

electricity consumed by approximately 2 to 3 million Americans. When 

projected increases in air and water temperatures associated with climate 

change are combined with changes to water availability, generation 

capacity during the summer months may be significantly reduced, 

according to DOE. Warmer water discharged from power plants into lakes 

or rivers can also harm fish and plants; such discharges generally require 

a permit and are monitored. 

In addition to the effects of rising temperatures and reduced water 

availability, power plant operations are also susceptible to extreme 

weather, increased precipitation, and sea level rise, according to 

assessments by USGCRP and DOE. To a large extent, this vulnerability 

stems from their location—thermoelectric power plants are frequently 

located along the U.S. coastline, and many inland plants sit upon lowlying areas or flood plains. For coastal plants, more intense hurricaneforce winds can produce damaging storm surges and flooding—an impact 

illustrated by Hurricane Sandy, which shut down several power plants. 

Some power plants near the coast could also be affected by sea level 

rise, according to DOE, because they are located on land that is relatively 

flat and, in some places, subsiding. Increasing intensity and frequency of 

flooding also poses a risk to inland power plants, according to DOE. The 

structures that draw cooling water from rivers are vulnerable to flooding 

and, in some cases, storm surge. This risk was illustrated when Fort 

Calhoun nuclear power plant was initially shut down for a scheduled 

refueling outage in April 2011. According to Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission officials, the outage was subsequently extended due to 

flooding from the Missouri River and a need to address long-standing 

technical issues that continued to impair plant operations.39

Renewable energy infrastructure. Overall, use of renewable energy is 

growing in the United States, according to the Energy Information 

According to 

USGCRP, seasonal flooding could result in increased costs to manage 

on-site drainage and runoff.

 39 According to NRC documents, Fort Calhoun remained closed as of November 1, 2013. 
Page 22 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Administration (EIA), with hydropower and wind representing the largest

renewable sources of electricity in 2012. Renewable energy sources 

generally produce much lower emissions of greenhouse gases, the 

primary anthropogenic driver of climate change. However, these sources 

can also be affected by climate change, given their dependence on water 

resources, wind patterns, and solar radiation. Specific impacts to these 

sectors are described below:

• Hydropower. Hydropower—a major source of electricity in some 

regions of the United States, particularly the Northwest—is highly 

sensitive to a number of climactic changes. According to USGCRP 

and DOE, rising temperatures can reduce the amount of water 

available for hydropower—due to increased evaporation—and 

degrade habitats for fish and other wildlife. Hydropower production is 

also highly sensitive to changes in precipitation and river discharge, 

according to USGCRP and DOE assessments. According to 

USGCRP’s 2009 assessment, for example, studies suggest that every 

1 percent decrease in precipitation results in a 2 to 3 percent drop in 

streamflow; in the Colorado Basin, such a drop decreases 

hydropower generation by 3 percent. Climate variability has already 

had a significant influence on the operation of hydropower systems, 

according to USGCRP, with significant changes detected in the timing 

and amount of streamflows in many western rivers.

• Biofuels. According to USGCRP assessments, biofuels made from 

grains, sugar and oil crops, starch, grasses, trees, and biological 

waste are meeting an increasing portion of U.S. energy demand.40

Currently, however, most U.S. biofuels are produced from corn grown 

on rain-fed land, making biofuel susceptible to drought and reduced 

precipitation, as well as competing demands for water.41

 40Generally, under the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is overseen by EPA, 

transportation fuels in the United States are required to contain 36 billion gallons of 

biofuels annually by 2022.

These issues 

were highlighted when droughts in 2012 produced a poor corn 

harvest, raising concerns about the allocation of corn for food versus 

ethanol. Production of biofuel crops may also be inhibited by heavy 

rainfall and flooding, according to DOE. Climate change could also 

present some benefits; for example, warmer temperatures could 

41According to DOE, water use in biofuel refineries has been significantly reduced as a 

result of energy- and water-efficient designs in new plants and improved system 

integration in existing plants.
Page 23 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

extend the period of the growing season (although DOE also notes 

that extreme heat could damage crops).

• Solar. The effects of climate change on solar energy—which 

generated about 0.05 percent of U.S. electricity in 2010—depend on 

the type of solar technology in use, according to DOE and USGCRP. 

Some studies suggest that photovoltaic energy production could be 

affected by changes in haze, humidity, and dust. Higher temperatures 

can also reduce the effectiveness of photovoltaic electricity 

generation. On the other hand, concentrating solar power (CSP) 

systems— unlike photovoltaic cells—require extensive amounts of 

water for cooling purposes, making them susceptible to water 

shortages.

42

• Wind. Wind energy accounted for about 13 percent of U.S. renewable 

energy consumption in 2011, but its use is growing rapidly, according 

to EIA. Unlike thermoelectric generation, wind energy does not use or 

consume water to generate electricity, making it a potentially attractive 

option in light of water scarcity concerns. On the other hand, wind 

energy cannot be naturally stored, and the natural variability of wind 

speeds can have a significant positive or negative impact on the 

amount of energy produced. Wind turbines are also subject to 

extreme weather, according to USGCRP. 

• Geothermal. Geothermal power plants extract geothermal fluids—hot 

water, brines, and steam—from the earth by drilling wells to depths of 

up to 10,000 feet. According to EIA, geothermal energy represented 

approximately 2 percent of U.S. energy consumption in 2011, with 

most geothermal reservoirs located in western states, Alaska, and 

Hawaii. As with fossil fuel power plants and concentrating solar 

power, increases in air and water temperatures can reduce the 

efficiency with which geothermal facilities generate electricity, 

according to DOE’s 2013 assessment. Geothermal power plants can 

also withdraw and consume significant quantities of water, according 

to DOE, making them susceptible to water shortages caused by 

changes in precipitation or warming temperatures.

 42According to DOE, CSP power plants using recirculating cooling water typically 

consume more water than a fossil fuel or nuclear power plants.
Page 24 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Transmission and distribution infrastructure can extend for thousands of 

miles, making it vulnerable to a variety of climate change impacts.43

According to assessments by USGCRP and others, transmission and 

distribution lines and substations are susceptible to damage from extreme 

winds, ice, lightning strikes, wildfires, landslides, and flooding (see fig. 5). 

High winds, especially when combined with precipitation from tropical 

storms and hurricanes, can be particularly damaging, potentially 

interrupting service in broad geographic areas over long periods of time.44

In the winter months, heavy snowfall45 and excessive icing on overhead 

lines can cause outages and require costly repairs, according to a review 

of literature published in the journal Energy.

46

 43Electricity generated through power plants or renewable energy sources is typically sent 

through high-voltage, high-capacity transmission lines to areas where it will be used; 

substations then transform the electricity to lower voltages and send it through local 

distribution wires to homes and businesses.

According to USGCRP, 

increasing temperatures and drought may increase the risk of wildfires, 

which in turn may cause physical damage to electricity transmission 

infrastructure and decrease available transmission capacity. Apart from 

transmission and distribution lines, severe weather can also present risks 

for substations, according to DOE, which modify voltage for residential 

and commercial use, as well as for operation centers that are critical 

components of any electricity supply system. 

44Although wind-related outages do occur on transmission systems, about 90 percent of 

outages during a storm event occur along distribution systems, according to DOE.

45According to USGCRP, over the last century, snowstorms have increased in frequency 

in the Northeast and upper Midwest and decreased in frequency in the South and lower 

Midwest.

46Roberto Schaeffer, Alexandre Salem Szklo, André Frossard Pereira de Lucena, Bruno 

Soares Moreira Cesar Borba, Larissa Pinheiro Pupo Nogueira, Fernanda Pereira Fleming, 

Alberto Troccoli, Mike Harrison, Mohammed Sadeck Boulahya, “Energy Sector 

Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Review,” Energy 38 (2012). 

Climate Change Can Impact 

Electricity Transmission and 

Distribution Infrastructure
Page 25 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 5: Examples of Weather-Related Electrical Grid Disturbances

Since 2000, there has been a steady increase in the number of weatherrelated grid disruptions in the United States, according to DOE. These 

disruptions—which are often a result of trees damaging distribution 

lines—can result in high costs for utilities and consumers, including repair 

costs for damaged equipment and economic costs related to work 

interruptions, lost productivity, and other factors. Some recent events, as 

reported by DOE, illustrate these vulnerabilities. In 2012, for example, 

about 3 to 4 million customers lost power due to a combination of 

thunderstorms and strong winds—known as a derecho—that affected the 

Midwest and Mid-Atlantic coast. Hurricane Sandy’s impact was even 

more severe, according to DOE, with electricity outages affecting around 

8.7 million customers.

47

 47DOE, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Comparing the Impacts of 

Northeast Hurricanes on Energy Infrastructure (Washington, D.C.: April 2013).

DOE further reported that around 1.4 million of 
Page 26 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

these customers were still without power 6 days later. Winter conditions 

can also pose risks to the electrical grid; in February 2013, a winter storm 

caused extensive damage to transmission systems in the Northeast, 

causing over 660,000 customers in eight states to lose power. See figure

6 for weather-related grid disruptions.

Figure 6: Weather-Related Grid Disruptions, 2000-2012

Apart from risks related to extreme weather events, increasing 

temperatures may decrease transmission system efficiency and could 

reduce available transmission capacity, according to DOE. Approximately 

7 percent of generated power is lost in transmission and distribution, 

according to information publicly available on the EIA’s website. As 

temperatures rise, the capacity of power lines to carry current decreases,

according to DOE, as does the overall efficiency of the grid. Higher 
Page 27 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

temperatures may also cause overhead lines to sag, posing fire and 

safety hazards. All of these factors can contribute to power outages at 

times of peak demand, according to USGCRP. In 2006, for example, 

electric power transformers failed in Missouri and New York, causing 

interruptions of the electric power supply in the midst of a widespread 

heat wave.

Based on our previous work, as well as reports from USGCRP, NRC, and 

others, we identified several broad, systemic factors that could amplify the 

effects of climate change on energy infrastructure. These factors—which 

include changes in water availability, system interdependencies, 

increases in energy demand, and the compounding effects of multiple 

climate impacts—could have implications that extend throughout the 

energy sector and beyond.

As our series of reports on the energy-water nexus has shown, water and 

energy are inextricably linked and mutually dependent, with each 

affecting the other’s availability.48

 48Since 2009, GAO has issued five reports on the interdependencies that exist between 

energy and water. GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: Improvements to Federal Water Use Data 

Would Increase Understanding of Trends in Power Plant Water Use, 

Many aspects of energy production 

require the use of water to operate (see fig. 7). As discussed earlier in this 

review, fossil fuel and nuclear power plants—which accounted for about 

90 percent of U.S. energy consumption in 2011—rely heavily on water for 

cooling purposes. As we reported in 2012, recently developed hydraulic 

fracturing methods also require significant amounts of water—3 to 5.6 

million gallons of freshwater per well, according to our previous work on 

GAO-10-23

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 2009); GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: Many Uncertainties 

Remain about National and Regional Effects of Increased Biofuel Production on Water 

Resources, GAO-10-116 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2009); GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: 

Amount of Energy Needed to Supply, Use, and Treat Water Is Location-Specific and Can 

Be Reduced by Certain Technologies and Approaches, GAO-11-225 (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 23, 2011); GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: A Better and Coordinated Understanding of 

Water Resources Could Help Mitigate the Impacts of Potential Oil Shale Development, 

GAO-11-35 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 2010); and GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: 

Information on the Quantity, Quality, and Management of Water Produced during Oil and 

Gas Production, GAO-12-156 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 9, 2012).

Broad, Systemic Factors 

Could Amplify Climate 

Change Impacts on 

Energy Infrastructure

Changes in Water Availability 

May Significantly Impact 

Energy Supply
Page 28 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

shale resources and development.49 Increased evaporation rates or 

changes in snowpack may affect the volume and timing of water available 

for hydropower. Water is also required to mine and transport coal and 

uranium; to extract, produce, and refine oil and gas; and to support crops 

used in biofuel production, among other uses. According to the 

Congressional Research Service, the energy sector is the fastest growing 

water consumer in the United States and is projected to account for 85 

percent of the growth in domestic water consumption between 2005 and 

2030. This increase in water use associated with energy development is 

being driven, in part, by rising energy demand, increased development of 

domestic energy, and shifts to more water-intense energy sources and 

technologies.50

 49GAO, Oil and Gas: Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental 

and Public Health Risks, GAO-12-732 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 2012). Water used in 

shale oil and gas development is largely considered to be consumptive and can be 

permanently removed from the hydrologic cycle, according to EPA and Interior officials. 

However, it is difficult to determine the long- term effect on water resources because the 

scale and location of future operations remains largely uncertain. Similarly, the total 

volume that operators will withdraw from surface water and aquifers for drilling and 

hydraulic fracturing is not known until operators submit applications to the appropriate 

regulatory agency. As a result, the cumulative amount of water consumed over the lifetime 

of the activity remains largely unknown.

50Water consumption is the portion of the water withdrawn that is no longer available to be 

returned to a water source, such as when it has evaporated. Energy production (which 

includes biofuel production), together with thermoelectric power, is the second largest 

consumer of water in the United States, accounting for approximately 11 percent of water 

consumption in 2005. Irrigation was the largest consumer, at approximately 74 percent. 

(Elcock, D., “Future U.S. Water Consumption: The Role of Energy Production,” Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association vol. 46, no. 3 (2010): 447-460.). However, 

according to the U.S. Geological Survey, in terms of water withdrawal, thermoelectric 

power was the largest source of water withdrawals (49 percent) in 2005, followed by 

irrigation at 31 percent. Water withdrawal refers to water removed from the ground or 

diverted from a surface water source, such as an ocean, river, or lake.
Page 29 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 7: Water Use by the U.S. Energy Sector

According to USGCRP and NOAA, increasing temperatures and shifting 

precipitation patterns are causing regional and seasonal changes to the 

water cycle—trends that present significant risks for the U.S. energy 

sector. More frequent and intense droughts, reduced summertime 
Page 30 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

precipitation, and decreased streamflows are likely to adversely affect 

available water supply in some regions, particularly during the summer 

months.51

• In 2010, below-normal precipitation and streamflows in the Columbia 

River basin resulted in insufficient hydropower generation to fulfill load 

obligations for the Bonneville Power Administration, resulting in 

reported losses of approximately $233 million or 10 percent from the 

prior year;

Given the energy sector’s dependence on water, these 

changes are likely to have wide-ranging impacts on the costs and 

methods for extracting, producing, and delivering fuels; the costs and 

methods used to produce electricity; the location of future infrastructure; 

and the types of technologies used. In recent years, a number of weather 

and climate events have served to illustrate some of the risks associated 

with water scarcity, as reported by DOE:

• In 2007, a severe southeast drought reduced river flow in the 

Chattahoochee River by nearly 80 percent; reducing hydroelectric 

power in the Southeast by 45 percent;

• In 2012, drought and low river levels disrupted barge transportation of 

petroleum and coal along the Mississippi River.

USGCRP and DOE assessments further note that the energy sector’s 

demand for water will increasingly compete with rising demand from the 

agricultural, industrial, and other sectors.

The energy sector comprises a complex system of interdependent 

facilities and components, and damage to one part of the system can 

adversely affect infrastructure in other phases of the supply chain, 

according to DOE and USGCRP. Many different types of energy 

infrastructure—from pipelines to refineries—depend on electricity to 

 51According to EPA, water from snowpack declined for most of the western states from 

1950 to 2000, with losses at some sites exceeding 75 percent. Annual streamflows are 

expected to decrease in the summer for most regions, according to USGCRP, and 

drought conditions—which have become more common and widespread over the past 40 

years in the Southwest, southern Great Plains, and Southeast, according to USGCRP—

are expected to become more frequent and intense. Groundwater resources are already 

being depleted in multiple regions, according to USGS, and these impacts are expected to 

continue. See EPA, Climate Change Indicators in the United States, EPA 430-R-10-007 

(Washington, D.C.: 2010) and United States Geological Survey, Groundwater Depletion in 

the United States (1900–2008), Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5079 (Reston, VA: 

May 2013).

Energy Sector 

Interdependencies Can 

Amplify Impacts
Page 31 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

function; as such, they may be unable to operate in a power outage, even 

if otherwise undamaged. Recent events associated with Hurricane Sandy 

illustrate these interdependencies—over 7,000 transformers and 15,200 

poles were damaged, according to DOE, causing widespread power 

outages across 21 states. These outages affected a range of 

infrastructure dependent on electricity to function—for example, two New 

Jersey refineries were shut down, and a number of petroleum terminals 

and gas station fuel pumps were rendered inoperable. Because many 

components of the U.S. energy system-–like coal, oil, and electricity-–

move from one area to another, extreme weather events affecting energy 

infrastructure in one region can lead to significant supply consequences 

elsewhere, according to USGCRP.

Interdependencies also link the energy sector to other sectors, such as 

transportation, agriculture, and communications. The energy sector 

requires railways, roads, and ports to transport resources such as coal, 

oil, and natural gas, for example; conversely, many modes of 

transportation rely on oil, gasoline, or electricity. Given these 

interdependencies, disruptions of services in one sector can lead to 

cascading disruptions in other sectors. Interrelationships between the 

transportation, fuel distribution, and electricity sectors were found to be 

major factors in Florida’s recovery from past hurricanes, according to 

USGCRP.

Increases in temperature are expected to affect the cost, type, and 

amount of energy consumed in the United States, according to NRC and 

USGCRP assessments. Over the past four decades, the demand for 

cooling has risen and the demand for heating has declined (see fig. 8). As 

average temperatures rise and extreme weather events—such as heat 

waves—become more common, these trends are expected to continue, 

although specific impacts will vary by region and season.52

 52Many factors can affect energy demand, including temperature and other weather 

conditions, population, economic conditions, energy prices, and conservation programs. 

Net electricity 

demand is projected to increase in every U.S. region, but particularly in 

southern states, since homes and businesses depend primarily on 

electricity for air conditioning. (In contrast, heating is provided by a 

combination of natural gas, heating oil, electricity, and renewable 

sources.) Increases in peak electricity demand caused by extreme high 

temperatures could potentially strain the capacity of existing electricity 

Higher Temperatures Are 

Expected To Increase 

Energy Demand
Page 32 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

infrastructure in some regions, according to DOE. In the summer heat 

wave of 2006, for example, some Midwest nuclear plants were forced to 

reduce output and several transformers failed, causing widespread 

electricity interruptions and making it difficult to access air conditioning. 

Climate change-related increases in demand could also be exacerbated 

by a number of ongoing trends, such as population growth and increased 

building sizes.

Figure 8: Historical Increases in Cooling Demand and Decreases in Heating Demand

Note: The amount of energy needed to cool (or warm) buildings is proportional to cooling (or heating) 

degree days. The figure shows increases in “cooling degree days” that result in increased air 

conditioning use, and decreases in “heating degree days,” meaning less energy required to heat 

buildings in winter, compared with the average for 1970-2000.
Page 33 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

According to DOE and IPCC, some climate change impacts are likely to 

interact with others, creating a compounding effect.53

• Higher air and water temperatures may contribute to both an increase 

in electricity demand and a decrease in electricity supply. 

For example:

54

• The effects of sea level rise may be exacerbated by more severe 

storms and coastal erosion, causing flooding across a larger area. 

Storms can also damage natural features, such as wetlands, and 

manmade structures, such as sea walls, that help protect coastal 

infrastructure from sea level rise and storm surges.

• Both warmer temperatures and drought heighten the risk of flooding 

and wildfires, which—alone or in combination—could ultimately limit 

the amount of electricity that can be generated and transmitted during 

times of peak demand.

Compounding factors may be important for climate preparedness from 

both a local perspective as well as a regional or national perspective 

focused on overall system resilience, according to DOE.

Adaptive measures could reduce the potential for climate change to affect 

the energy infrastructure in the United States. As previously discussed, 

these measures vary across the energy supply chain, but they generally 

fall into two broad categories—hardening and resiliency. Industry decision 

makers we spoke with provided examples that illustrate some of the steps 

they have taken to integrate adaptive measures into their energy 

infrastructure, including investments that hardened their physical assets—

such as elevating electrical substation control rooms to reduce potential 

flooding hazards— and improved the resiliency of portions of their energy 

 53IPCC, Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate 

Change Adaptation: A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change [C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. 

Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley 

(eds.)]. (Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY : 2012).

54According to DOE, projected increases in air and water temperatures could significantly 

reduce electricity generation capacity, particularly in the summer months, by (a) 

decreasing the efficiency of power plant generation, (b) forcing power plant curtailments 

due to thermal discharge limits, (c) reducing electricity generated through hydropower and 

photovoltaic solar sources, and (d) increasing the temperature of local water sources to 

the extent they can no longer be used for cooling water. 

Multiple Climate Impacts May 

Have Compounding Effects

Adaptive Measures 

Could Reduce 

Potential Climate 

Change Impacts on 

U.S. Energy 

Infrastructure
Page 34 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

supply system—such as purchasing backup power generators to restore 

electricity more quickly after a potential utility power outage.

While potential adaptive measures vary widely across the energy supply 

chain, they all generally focus on hardening—physical changes to make 

particular pieces of infrastructure less susceptible to storm-related 

damage—or improving resiliency— increasing the ability to recover 

quickly from damage to facilities’ components or to any of the external 

systems on which they depend. For instance, hardening energy 

infrastructure across the supply chain is part of the energy industry’s 

normal responsibilities and operating practices to ensure existing 

infrastructure is available to deliver energy to its customers under a range 

of weather conditions. According to industry representatives, industry 

chooses to make physical changes to its infrastructure to make it less 

likely to be damaged by extreme winds, flooding, or other weather events.

Choices to harden infrastructure can require significant investment by 

industry, according to DOE’s 2010 report on hardening and resiliency, 

such as building flood walls around refineries, elevating pumps used to 

transport fuels via pipelines, building power plants at higher elevations to 

minimize the risk of flooding, and replacing transmission and distribution 

poles with poles made of stronger materials to make them less 

susceptible to damage from high winds and storms.

In contrast to hardening measures that try to prevent damage, resiliency 

measures are focused on quickly recovering from damage to various 

parts of the energy supply chain, thereby enabling the system to continue 

to operate. Resiliency can take many forms and can be implemented by 

industry participants anywhere along the energy supply chain.55

 55 The energy supply chain is essentially a system of interconnected markets containing 

energy infrastructure that begins with extraction or generation of basic energy and ends 

with retail outlets for energy products. Along this chain, suppliers of inputs interact with 

demanders or consumers of these inputs, and both can avail themselves of substitute 

courses of action in adapting to climate change. For example, companies in the business 

of supplying oil to refineries may have alternative sources of oil, offshore and onshore that 

vary in their vulnerability to climate change impacts. In a mirror image, companies in the 

business of refining oil-–consumers of oil as an input—may be able to avail themselves of 

these supply choices by switching their demand to less vulnerable oil.

The 

following example—using one part of the energy supply chain, gasoline 

supplies—illustrates resiliency to potential events related to climate 

changes. In this illustration, if climate change resulted in rising sea levels 

Adaptive Measures Can 

Be Employed Across the 

Energy Supply Chain
Page 35 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

that accentuate the damaging effects of tropical storms on the 

infrastructure for extracting, refining, transporting, or distributing oil, 

adaptation efforts in the various related parts of this infrastructure (see fig. 

9) could help improve the overall resiliency in the gasoline supply chain.

Specifically, at the beginning of the chain, adaptation could take the form 

of decreased extraction of oil from vulnerable offshore platforms 

supplanted by increased extraction from or use of less vulnerable 

onshore and foreign sources of oil.

Figure 9: The Gasoline Supply Chain

Further down the supply chain, adaptation might involve decreased 

refining of oil from vulnerable refineries supplanted by increased refining 

of oil from less vulnerable refineries and additional imported gasoline from 

foreign refineries. Still further down the supply chain, if climate change 

rendered one mode of transport or distribution more vulnerable than 

others, adaptation might involve shipping or distributing less gasoline via 

the more vulnerable mode. Substitute sources of oil, refining, and 

transportation for the development and distribution of gasoline, therefore, 
Page 36 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

represent ways in which industry can choose to adapt and limit 

disruptions to gasoline infrastructure and supply.

Examples of actual gasoline supply chain resiliency are demonstrated by 

actions taken during Hurricanes Katrina in 2005 and Sandy in 2012 as 

follows:

• In 2005, oil platforms were evacuated and damaged, as a result of 

Hurricane Katrina, virtually shutting down all oil production in the Gulf 

region. In response, the Administration approved loans of oil from the 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help refineries offset this short-term 

physical supply disruption at the beginning of the supply chain, 

thereby, helping to moderate the impact the production shutdown had 

on U.S. crude oil supplies.56

• A more recent example, following Hurricane Sandy, illustrates how 

such alternatives can help increase resiliency at the distribution stage 

of the supply chain. In 2012, this storm damaged petroleum terminals 

used to store and distribute gasoline in the New York Harbor (NYH) 

area, thus disrupting the normal supply chain. However, according to 

DOE’s EIA report on the summary of impacts on petroleum supplies 

following Hurricane Sandy, “...areas normally served by the NYH 

terminals were also receiving some supplies through more distant 

terminals as industry pursued workarounds to meet customer needs 

to the best of their ability.” 57

Ultimately, how much adaptation will take place and in what form—

hardening and increasing resilience, such as choosing substitute actions 

Thus, while a significant disruption in the 

overall ability to move gasoline through the NYH area occurred as a 

result of the storm, other terminals outside the affected area helped to 

ameliorate some of the supply loss.

 56 The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was authorized by Congress in 1975, following the 

Arab oil embargo of 1973-1974. It is owned by the federal government and operated by 

DOE. Under prescribed conditions, the President and the Secretary of Energy have the 

discretion to authorize release of oil in the Reserve through loans or other means to 

minimize significant supply disruptions and protect the economy from damage. [See GAO, 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Available Oil Can Provide Significant Benefits, but Many 

Factors Should Influence Future Decisions about Fill, Use, and Expansion GAO-06-872

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 24, 2006).]

57 DOE’s Energy Information Administration, New York/New Jersey Intra Harbor 

Petroleum Supplies Following Hurricane Sandy: Summary of Impacts through November 

13, 2012 (Washington, D.C.: November 2012).
Page 37 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

as described above—will depend on how the costs of adaptation compare 

with the expected costs of taking no action.58

Industry decision makers have taken steps to integrate adaptive 

measures into energy infrastructure planning and investments using 

varying approaches as illustrated by the following examples. In three of 

the examples we selected, companies implemented a company-wide 

approach and incorporated several adaptive measures into overall energy 

infrastructure planning and investments. In another example we selected, 

a company increased resiliency by purchasing and prepositioning mobile 

generators to run key facilities and pumping stations along oil pipelines in 

the event of power outages.

Entergy Corporation generates, transmits, and distributes electric power 

in the Southeast. According to Entergy representatives, its transmission 

and distribution infrastructure along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico is 

vulnerable to extreme weather events and storms, storm surge caused by 

hurricanes, and sea level rise associated with land subsidence. Following 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, Entergy experienced unprecedented 

damage, leading to power outages for roughly 800,000 customers in 

Louisiana. The company faced widespread damage to transmission and 

distribution systems, flooded substations, and power plants resulting in 

shutdowns. Figure 10 shows an example of damaged transmission power 

lines as a result of Hurricane Rita. Entergy’s New Orleans subsidiary—

Entergy New Orleans (ENO)—filed for bankruptcy after this major 

damage to its infrastructure and the declining revenues due to the drastic 

reduction to its customer base as residents left the city.

 58 In our illustrative example, choices in the gasoline supply chain represent investments 

that are already in place regardless of climate change. Therefore, what is relevant in 

considering the cost of using the substitutes described are the incremental costs of 

making greater use of these existing, or potentially new, substitutes compared with not 

adapting.

Industry Decision Makers 

Have Taken Steps to 

Integrate Adaptive 

Measures Into Energy 

Infrastructure

Entergy
Page 38 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Figure 10: Fallen Transmission Lines after Hurricane Rita

Driven by a lack of useful information on which to base planning for 

infrastructure protection against future storms, Entergy representatives 

told us that they partnered with the America’s Wetland Foundation (AWF) 

and commissioned a study in 2010 identifying the company’s most critical 

and vulnerable assets in the Gulf.59

 59 AWF, established in Louisiana, and working throughout the Gulf region, was founded in 

2002 in response to a comprehensive coastal study calling on the need to alert the nation 

to the devastating loss of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands and how their loss impacts the rest 

of the nation. Coastal barriers and wetlands can help reduce infrastructure damage from 

weather events along the coast.

The study also highlighted adaptation 

strategies that have low investment requirements, high reduction of 

expected losses—regardless of climate change impacts—and additional 

benefits, such as coastal wetlands restoration. For example, Entergy 

representatives told us that the study identified a number of potential 

hardening and resiliency measures, such as replacing wooden 

transmission and distribution poles with steel or concrete, strengthening 
Page 39 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

distribution poles, building levees and berms around oil refineries, 

elevating substations in flooding areas, and managing vegetation along 

electricity lines. The study estimated potential losses of $350 billion along 

the Gulf Coast by 2030 due to rising sea level and loss of coastline. It 

also identified $120 billion in potential investments and concluded that 

supporting a range of adaptive actions to reduce the potential weather 

and climate-related risks, and identifying barriers to increasing industry 

resilience, are important elements of a coordinated response.

Entergy representatives told us by taking a company-wide approach to 

identify infrastructure vulnerable to climate-related risks, they 

implemented several adaptive measures highlighted in the study, such as 

replacing wooden transmission poles with steel, strengthening distribution 

poles with support wires, and elevating sensitive electronic equipment in 

select substations. In response to more recent storms, such as Hurricane 

Isaac, Entergy representatives told us that the implementation of these 

adaptive measures has paid off. They have experienced less 

infrastructure damage and have restored power to their customers more 

quickly than in previous storms.60

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides natural gas and 

electric power to 15 million people in northern and central California.

PG&E continues to implement a company-wide approach to incorporate 

climate-related risks as part of its business planning and investments. In 

2008, PG&E convened a science team–-specializing in meteorology, 

biology, and hydrology— to evaluate global climate-related risks, assess 

climate change modeling, and identify best adaptation practices for the 

company’s assets. PG& E officials told us that risks and 

recommendations developed by the science team are used to develop 

adaptation strategies for infrastructure potentially impacted by weather 

and climate-related risks such as sea level rise, increased air 

temperatures, and changes in precipitation patterns.

For example, PG&E representatives told us that some equipment in the 

company’s substations is vulnerable to increased temperatures in the 

state. Therefore, PG&E worked with the equipment manufacturer’s 

 60 In addition, Entergy has participated in Community Leadership Forums and technical 

conferences to educate local communities of potential climate change risks, help identify 

cost-effective measures to manage risk and discuss how the company could prioritize its 

investments in system hardening to minimize business interruption losses.

Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company
Page 40 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

engineers on best operating practices for their substations at higher 

temperatures. Additionally, PG&E has major transmission and distribution 

lines in the San Francisco Bay Area that are potentially susceptible to sea 

level rise. Therefore, the company has strengthened electric transmission 

structures in the southern Bay Area and is collaborating with state and 

federal agencies on bay habitat restoration that will help increase utility 

resiliency to tidal action, according to PG&E officials. See figure 11 for a

picture of Gateway Generating Station.

Figure 11: Gateway Generating Station

As a result of limited water availability and other factors, PG&E 

implemented dry cooling technology at two of its natural gas fueled 

generating stations, Gateway Generating Station in Antioch, California 

(2007), and Colusa Generating Station in Maxwell, California (2010). 

Although reducing plant efficiency under some conditions, dry cooling 

technology uses 97 percent less water and produces 96 percent less 

discharge than a conventional water cooling system, which helps the 

company significantly reduce the use of water for cooling purposes.

PG&E representatives cited incorporation of a less water intensive 

technology as having increased the plants’ resiliency to potentially 

decreased water availability.
Page 41 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Scientists also predict that climate change will result in significant 

reductions in snowpack in parts of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 

potentially impacting PG&E’s hydroelectric system. PG&E’s adaptation 

strategies include developing new modeling tools for forecasting runoff, 

maintaining higher winter carryover reservoir storage levels, reducing 

conveyance flows in canals and flumes during winter storms as more 

precipitation falls as rain, and reducing discretionary reservoir water 

releases, according to PG&E officials.

Colonial Pipeline owns and operates a 5,500-mile network of pipelines 

running from Houston, Texas, to NYH. 61

Colonial representatives told us that to enhance resiliency after the 2005 

hurricane season along the Gulf Coast, Colonial purchased 12 large 

mobile generators (i.e., Gensets) and seven transformers to help it

recover more quickly from power losses due to severe weather events 

(see fig. 12). According to these representatives, this equipment allows 

the pipeline company to run key pumping stations anywhere along the 

pipeline to minimize disruptions when electric power is unavailable due to 

severe weather or other events. In addition, after Hurricanes Gustav and 

Ike in 2008, Colonial implemented a number of resiliency measures, such 

as monitoring storm paths to preposition generators where power would 

most likely be lost. Company representatives told us they also used 

Colonial’s Control Center in Atlanta, Georgia, to communicate with fellow 

employees about potential areas where the pipeline might experience 

power outages. The company followed similar efforts in preparation for 

Hurricane Sandy in 2012. For example, Colonial representatives moved 

one-half of the company’s new mobile generators from Mississippi to 

These pipelines transport a daily 

average of 100 million gallons of refined petroleum products such as 

gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, fuels for commercial aviation and 

for the U.S. military—accounting for about 15 percent of the fuel supplied 

in the United States and almost 65 percent of fuel supplied in the 

Southeast. In general, such pipeline systems are susceptible to disruption 

from severe weather events, primarily because they require significant 

amounts of electric power to operate computer systems, generators, and 

pumps. Disruptions to this power can reduce or halt the transport of 

refined products in the pipeline system.

 61 The pipeline travels through the coastal states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 

New Jersey. Branches from the main pipeline also reach Tennessee.

Colonial Pipeline
Page 42 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Linden, New Jersey, prior to Hurricane Sandy making landfall.62

Figure 12: Colonial’s Portable Generators

After the 

storm, while Colonial’s pipeline system remained undamaged, electrical 

power was down, but company representatives told us they successfully 

used the mobile generators to restore power to the pipeline, resulting in 

relatively few disruptions for oil transportation along the system. Figure 12 

shows an example of portable generators used to transport oil during 

electrical outage.

Florida Power and Light (FPL)—the largest electric utility in Florida—

generates and distributes electricity to approximately 4.5 million 

customers. FPL representatives told us that one of the company’s nuclear 

power plants, Turkey Point in Homestead, the largest generating station 

in Florida, is potentially vulnerable to extreme weather events and storms, 

 62 Colonial representatives told us that the company sold the mobile generators used for 

power outages during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2011. Since then, the company 

purchased eight new state-of-the-art mobile generators that were used in response to 

Hurricane Sandy. 

Florida Power and Light
Page 43 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

storm surge caused by hurricanes, and sea level rise. In response, FPL 

has implemented a company-wide approach to incorporate climaterelated risks into their infrastructure planning and investments. FPL 

representatives told us they have a vested interest in hardening existing 

and new infrastructure to withstand climate change impacts given the 

substantial capital expense that the company invests in this infrastructure.

For example, the current power plant, which was built in the 1960s, is 

elevated 18 feet above sea level to protect against flooding and extreme 

storm surges. According to company representatives, all equipment and 

components important to nuclear safety are protected to about 20 feet 

above sea level and protected from waves to about 22 feet above sea 

level on the side facing Biscayne Bay.

In June 2009, FPL submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission to evaluate an option for constructing and operating two new 

nuclear reactor units— Units 6 and 7—at the existing Turkey Point site.

As part of its reactor licensing process, the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission requires licensees to assess and if necessary, take 

measures to mitigate the impacts of the natural hazards their reactors 

might face.63

 63 NRC requires the designs of structures, systems, and components important to safety 

to reflect appropriate consideration of the most severe natural hazards (NRC refers to 

natural hazards as natural phenomena) that had been historically reported for a reactor 

site and the surrounding area, with sufficient safety margin to account for the limited 

accuracy, quantity, and period over which historical data on natural hazards have been 

accumulated.

As part of this permitting and licensing process, FPL’s 

natural hazard assessment for Units 6 and 7 incorporated potential sea 

level rise over the next 100 years. According to company representatives, 

their hazard assessments for Units 6 and 7 used assumptions that are at 

least 20 percent more conservative than those used in the 1960s. For 

example, based on an extrapolation of historical weather data, FPL 

calculated that potential sea level rise over the next 100 years would be 

about 9 inches. The company rounded up the estimate to 1 foot of sea 

level rise to account for the uncertainties of potential climate change.

Additionally, in March 2013, FPL representatives submitted a reevaluation 

of flooding hazards for Units 3 and 4 to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission that also incorporated projected sea level rise over the next 

20 years when the existing reactors’ license expires. FPL’s reevaluation 

calls for it to use the latest available information and methodologies to 

analyze site-specific hazards, including stream and river flooding, 
Page 44 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

hurricane storm surges, tsunamis, and dam failures. This reevaluation will 

determine whether the hazard exceeds the facility’s flooding design basis 

so the Commission can assess the safety of the existing reactors at the 

Turkey Point site in light of more recent information. Figure 13 is a 

proposed illustration of Turkey Point’s Nuclear Units 6 and 7.

Figure 13: Proposed Turkey Point Nuclear Units 6 and 7
Page 45 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

The federal government has a limited role in directly adapting energy 

infrastructure to the potential impacts of climate change, but selected 

federal entities can play important supporting roles that influence private 

companies’ investment decisions and are taking steps to begin adaptation 

efforts within their respective missions.

Energy infrastructure adaptation is primarily accomplished through 

planning and investment decisions made by private companies that own 

the infrastructure;64

The federal government plays an important role in providing information 

to promote climate resilience. As we reported in our 2013 High Risk 

report, federal efforts on climate change are beginning to shift their focus 

to adaptation and providing information to state and local decision makers 

so they can make more informed decisions about the fiscal exposure 

nevertheless, the federal government can influence 

private sector investment decisions through: (1) providing information, (2) 

regulatory oversight, (3) technology research and development, and (4) 

market incentives and disincentives.

 64 Although most energy infrastructure is privately owned, the federal government owns a 

small number of hydroelectric power plants, transmission infrastructure, and strategic oil 

stock. The federal government’s ownership of energy infrastructure is primarily managed 

through the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and DOE through its Power Marketing 

Administrations (PMA) and Office of Petroleum Reserves. TVA supplies electricity to 

customers in parts of Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, North 

Carolina, and Virginia. Similarly, three of the four DOE PMAs own and operate electricity 

transmission infrastructure. The PMAs distribute and sell electricity from a network of 

federally built hydroelectric dams, one nonfederal nuclear power plant, and several other 

small nonfederal power plants. DOE is also responsible for maintaining the infrastructure 

necessary to deliver crude oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Federal Role in 

Directly Adapting 

Energy Infrastructure 

Is Limited, but 

Selected Federal 

Entities Can Play an 

Important Supporting 

Role in Decision 

Making and Are 

Initiating Actions 

toward Adaptation

Federal Influence on 

Energy Infrastructure 

Adaptation Decisions 

Generally Falls into 

Four Areas

Providing Information
Page 46 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

posed by potential climate changes.65

• NOAA develops and shares weather and climate-related information 

with government officials and private industry. For example, NOAA 

officials told us that through the National Weather Service (NWS) it 

produces weather forecasts for local areas out to seven days and 

probabilistic climate outlooks from 6 days out to a year. According to 

officials, NWS also monitors and assesses the state of the climate 

and provides information on longer term climate cycles such as the El 

Nino Southern Oscillation cycle.

Several federal agencies play a 

role in providing this information, including NOAA, DOE, U.S. Geological 

Survey, and USGCRP, as follows:

66

• DOE is working to make more climate change information available 

for decision makers at the federal, state, and local levels. For 

example, DOE officials stated that the Office of Science supports 

research reviewing available climate models and scientific projections, 

and it looks at local climate models in order to build in more locally 

detailed information to be useful and available to decision makers on 

a timely basis. In addition, DOE officials stated that the Office of 

Science supports research analyzing extreme weather events, 

including floods and droughts, and how these events impact regions.

Some industry decision makers told 

us that they use these data when making infrastructure planning and 

implementation decisions.

• USGS provides fundamental scientific information, tools, and 

techniques that land, water, wildlife, and cultural resource managers 

and other decision makers can apply to anticipate, monitor, and adapt 

to climate change impacts. Also, according to the USGCRP 2012-

2021 strategic plan,67

 65

USGS scientists have worked in collaboration 

with other USGCRP agencies to meet the needs of policymakers and 

resource managers for scientifically valid state-of-the-science 

GAO-13-283.

66 The El Niño Southern Oscillation is a natural occurring phenomenon that involves 

fluctuating ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The pattern generally 

fluctuates between two states: warmer than normal temperatures in the central and 

eastern equatorial Pacific (El Niño) and cooler than normal temperatures in the central 

and eastern equatorial Pacific (La Niña).

67 USGCRP, The National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021, A Strategic Plan for 

the U.S. Global Change Research Program (2012).
Page 47 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

information and predictive understanding of global change and its 

effects.

• USGCRP’s strategic objectives for 2012-2021 include improving the 

deployment and accessibility of science to inform adaptation 

decisions. To this end, USGCRP states in its strategic plan that its 

member agencies will work with state, local, and tribal governments, 

and other federal agencies to build the capabilities for engagement 

and support needed by all decision makers, especially in key areas of 

vulnerability. Additionally, in coordination with USGCRP, the 

President’s Climate Action Plan stated for the first time, the 2014 

National Climate Assessment will focus not only on dissemination of 

scientific information but also on translating scientific insights into 

practical, useable knowledge that can help decision makers anticipate 

and prepare for specific climate-change impacts.68

The federal government can also play a supporting role in energy 

infrastructure investment decisions through its regulatory oversight role. 

EPA, FERC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as NERC, 

regulate energy infrastructure by promulgating and enforcing emissions, 

reliability, and safety standards as follows:

• EPA issues environmental regulations that can have implications for 

electricity generation facilities, petroleum refineries, oil and gas 

extraction facilities, natural gas pipelines and hydrocarbon storage 

wells. EPA’s influence over these types of energy infrastructure 

comes when owners must make technological changes to the 

infrastructure in order to comply with EPA’s regulatory requirements. 

For example, in July 2012, we reported that EPA regulations will 

require some electricity generation facilities to install additional 

emissions controls. In some cases, electricity generation facilities may 

convert from coal to natural gas or even shut down rather than install 

the emissions controls necessary to comply with the regulations.69

 68 USGCRP is developing the Global Change Information System (GCIS), a 

comprehensive web-based system to deploy and manage global change information. This 

system will support the NCA by producing reports while also incorporating integrated and 

linked access to data to ensure open and transparent access to climate information.

69 GAO, EPA Regulations and Electricity: Better Monitoring by Agencies Could Strengthen 

Efforts to Address Potential Challenges, GAO-12-635 (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2012).

Regulatory Oversight
Page 48 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

• FERC’s influence on energy infrastructure comes primarily through its 

review and authorization process for specific projects. Through the 

review and authorization process, FERC can change the siting and 

design of a facility, require environmental mitigation measures and, for 

hydroelectric and natural gas infrastructure, can impose safety 

requirements. FERC’s activities have implications for several types of 

energy infrastructure, including hydropower plants, interstate natural 

gas pipelines and storage facilities, liquefied natural gas facilities, and 

interstate oil pipelines.

• The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as part of its reactor licensing 

process, evaluates nuclear power plant specifications, including 

requirements for flood protection. Determining how high a plant 

should be built to be safe from flooding is critical for U.S. nuclear 

power plants located on the coast given the lack of scientific 

consensus on the actual rate of sea level rise.

• NERC, through an industry-based consensus development process, 

establishes and enforces reliability standards for the bulk power 

system. These standards can result in energy infrastructure owners 

making technological changes to their infrastructure in order to ensure 

that the grid operates reliably.70

DOE also plays an important role in the research and development of 

new technologies to support the energy industry. In general, DOE 

conducts and funds a wide array of research and development programs 

aimed at both understanding the impact of climate change on energy 

production and developing new technologies to improve resilience to 

climate change. DOE also conducts assessments of climate change on 

electric grid stability, water availability for energy production, and site 

selection of the next generation of renewable energy infrastructure. For 

example, DOE officials stated that its Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy is looking at how to make biofuels and biomass less 

dependent on water, and DOE’s report on energy sector vulnerabilities 

identified this area of research as a technology opportunity where 

combined public and private efforts to improve the resilience of the 

NERC also investigates and analyzes 

the causes of significant power system disturbances in order to help 

prevent future events.

 70 NERC cannot require energy infrastructure owners to make a specific technological 

change, enlarge their facilities or construct new transmission or generation capacity, 

according to NERC officials. The officials stated that the specific actions that industry 

takes to meet NERC’s standards can vary.

Technology Research 

and Development
Page 49 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

energy sector should increase. The report also cites several other specific 

examples of technological options to improve climate resilience, including: 

enhanced restoration technologies and practices to maintain or expand 

regional wetlands and other environmental buffer zones; increased power 

plant efficiency through integration of technologies with higher thermal 

efficiencies than conventional coal-fired boilers; and improved water 

reservoir management and turbine efficiency for more efficient 

hydropower generation.

The federal government also provides a range of market incentives and 

disincentives that can encourage or discourage industry from 

implementing energy infrastructure adaptation measures. Incentives to 

incorporate adaptive efforts include tax incentives, direct expenditures 

and other support, such as production tax credits for renewable 

technologies. One example of direct expenditure is DOE’s Smart Grid 

Investment Grant Program. The program is structured as a public–private 

partnership to accelerate investments in grid modernization. DOE reports 

that $3.4 billion dollars in federal Recovery Act funds were matched with 

private sector resources—bringing the total investment to about $7.8 

billion. These funds were used to support 99 projects that are now 

deploying smart grid technologies in almost every state. 71

At the same time, some federal programs may discourage adaptation 

efforts that, in turn, can impact energy infrastructure. For example, 

according to studies we reviewed, to the extent that federal insurance 

Smart Grid 

technology incorporates the usage of smart meters that have outage 

notification capabilities that make it possible for utilities to know when 

customers lose power and to pinpoint outage locations more precisely. 

Smart meters also indicate when power has been restored.

 71 According to DOE, Smart Grid technology means “computerizing” the electric utility grid. 

It includes adding two-way digital communication technology to devices associated with 

the grid. Each device on the network can be given sensors to gather data (power meters, 

voltage sensors, fault detectors, etc.), plus two-way digital communication between the 

device in the field and the utility’s network operations center. A key feature of the smart 

grid is automation technology that lets the utility adjust and control each individual device 

or millions of devices from a central location.

Market Incentives 

and Disincentives
Page 50 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

programs—such as the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)72 —

have set premiums that are not risk-based, they can discourage 

individuals from engaging in adaptation that might otherwise have 

occurred. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials 

estimate that currently about 20 percent of NFIP policyholders pay less 

than full-risk premiums, which FEMA refers to as subsidized premiums. 

FEMA officials also estimate that, on average, policyholders with 

subsidized premiums pay only about 45 percent to 50 percent of the fullrisk premium. In such instances, adaptation may have been discouraged 

because such premiums have lowered the incentive for individuals to 

adapt by subsidizing investments that do not take into account the 

potential impacts of climate change. In general, as population increases 

along U.S. coastal areas more prone to damage from extreme weather, 

sea level rise, and high winds, infrastructure is built to provide and extend 

essential services such as energy and water. As a result, this 

infrastructure maybe more vulnerable to changing weather and climate 

conditions than it might have been had it been located further from the 

coast.

Selected federal entities that can influence energy infrastructure 

adaptation decisions are beginning to address climate change risks 

through project-specific activities, as well as through broader agency-wide 

assessments and interagency cooperation. Both the project-specific 

activities and the broader agency-wide assessments could impact energy 

infrastructure adaptation, but it is too early in the agencies’ assessment 

process to understand how, if it all, the assessments could influence 

energy infrastructure decision makers.

 72 NFIP is administered by FEMA. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Council of 

Economic Advisers (CEA), and GAO have cited insurance premiums as not fully reflecting 

risks. (See: CBO, “The National Flood Insurance Program: Factors Affecting Actuarial 

Soundness, “ November 2009; CEA, “Economic Report of the President,” March 2013; 

and GAO, Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in Coming 

Decades Are Potentially Significant, GAO-07-285 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2007); and 

GAO, FEMA: Action Needed to Improve Administration of the National Flood Insurance 

Program, GAO-11-297 Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2011). To address this issue, the 

Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-141, title II, Jul. 6, 

126 Stat. 916 (2012), (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 4001–4129)) proposes steps to address 

shortcomings in the NFIP by authorizing FEMA to consider information such as changing 

coastal topography, erosion rates, sea level rise projections, and changes in intensity of 

hurricanes in its future flood maps. These changes are expected to significantly increase 

NFIP’s insurance premium rates, in some cases.

Selected Federal Entities 

That Can Influence Energy 

Infrastructure Adaptation 

Are Beginning to Take 

Steps to Address Climate 

Change Risks
Page 51 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

DOE, EPA, FERC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as 

NERC, are beginning to incorporate consideration of climate change risks 

on a project-specific basis. Examples include the following:

• DOE has a long history of conducting fundamental energy science 

and energy technology research and development, and climate 

change is an ongoing part of DOE research, modeling and policy 

development. DOE program offices support a range of research and 

development activities related to climate change, according to DOE 

officials. For example, DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy and the National 

Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) are developing advanced 

water management technologies applicable to fossil and other power 

plants in three specific areas: nontraditional sources of process and 

cooling water to demonstrate the effectiveness of utilizing lower 

quality water for power plant needs73

• EPA’s Office of Water implements the National Water Program 

(NWP), which, according to EPA officials, monitors changes in power 

generation across the United States and the impacts of those 

changes on water resources. The NWP has developed two climate 

change strategies, the first in 2008 and the second in 2012. The most 

recent 2012 strategy recognizes that water and energy are intimately 

connected, and it puts forth the goal of using a systems approach to 

reduce the demand for both water and energy. The systems approach 

is one in which water, energy, and transportation infrastructure 

planning is integrated in order to increase efficiencies for all three 

sectors.

; innovative research to explore 

advanced technologies for the recovery and use of water from power 

plants; and advanced cooling technology research that examines wet, 

dry, and hybrid cooling technologies. This research, like other NETL 

activities that move innovations from the lab to the marketplace, can 

help advance the adaptive efforts that private companies are making 

to incorporate less water-intensive technology.

• FERC officials told us that while they consider climate models as a 

part of their review, FERC makes decisions on a project-by-project 

basis, and general modeling information alone is not sufficient. For 

example, during the review and authorization processes for liquefied 

 73 Lower quality water generally can refer to degraded or nonpotable water such as 

contaminated groundwater, treated municipal wastewater, industrial process water, 

irrigation return water, brackish water, and other types of water impacted by humans or 

naturally occurring minerals.

Selected Federal Entities 

Address Climate Change Risks 

on a Project-Specific Basis
Page 52 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

natural gas terminals, FERC evaluates whether terminal operators 

have accounted for potential hurricane and flooding impacts. Similarly, 

for hydropower project review and authorization, FERC noted that it 

looks at historical hydrological data as part of its analysis of project 

operation, which often includes monitoring and a provision that allows 

FERC to alter license requirements should environmental conditions 

change in the future. For example, if water levels change, officials can 

require project-specific adaptation changes that account for regional 

conditions, such as a drought in the Southeast. If drought conditions 

continue and less rainfall is expected, they may also suggest adaptive 

measures for a particular period of time.

• The Nuclear Regulatory Commission uses the reactor licensing 

process to review whether individual projects have adequate 

protection against hurricanes, flooding, and other natural phenomena. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has revised its guidance for 

hurricane wind speed protection at nuclear power plants. It has also 

required the operating fleet of nuclear power plants to complete 

reevaluations of certain hazards (i.e., seismic and flood hazards) 

using updated hazard information and present-day guidance and 

methodologies. Further, Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials 

noted that, if natural phenomena are shown to have the potential to 

cause a plant to exceed its safety parameters, the plant must correct 

the issue or be subject to enforcement actions.74

• NERC uses historical weather data to help it assess the reliability of 

the electrical grid, including changes that might result from climate 

change. NERC looks at weather patterns as part of its summer, 

winter, and 10-year reliability assessments that provide an overview of 

projected electricity demand growth, as well as other information on 

generation and transmission additions. Additionally, NERC officials 

told us that NERC’s annual 10‐year reliability assessments provide an 

independent view of the reliability of the electrical grid, identifying 

trends, emerging issues, and potential concerns. NERC’s projections 

These officials told 

us that they have access to the same data that insurance companies 

use in their climate modeling as well as other information to evaluate 

such actions on plant safety and operations.

 74 In commenting on this report, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission clarified that it does 

not directly regulate the impact of climate change on nuclear power plants but requires 

these plants to be protected against the effects of certain natural phenomena. Thus, in as 

much as climate change affects these natural phenomena, the Commission believes 

climate change impacts are taken into consideration in its review process. 
Page 53 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

are based on a bottom‐up approach, collecting data and perspectives 

from grid operators, electric utilities, and other users and owners, of 

the electrical grid.

DOE and EPA are also beginning to incorporate consideration of climate 

change risks on an agency-wide basis, via agency climate change 

adaptation plans and the Interagency Climate Change Task Force. 

Executive Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, 

and Economic Performance required federal agencies to develop 

strategic sustainability performance plans, which include climate change 

adaptation plans.75 The implementing instructions for developing the 

climate change adaptation plans stated that, through adaptation planning, 

each agency will identify aspects of climate change that are likely to 

impact the agency’s ability to achieve its mission and sustain its 

operations and respond strategically. According to the implementing 

instructions, integration of climate change adaptation planning into the 

operations, policies, and programs of the federal government will ensure 

that resources are invested wisely and that federal services and 

operations remain effective in current and future climate conditions. 

Federal agencies, including DOE and EPA, publicly released their first 

climate change adaptation plans in February 2013, as part of their 

annually updated strategic sustainability performance plans.76

These initial adaptation plans provide a high-level vulnerability analysis of 

the impact of climate change on the agencies’ mission, operations, and 

programs but do not address specific actions the agencies will take or 

how those actions could influence decision makers. Within DOE’s 

adaptation plan, the actionable items for integrating climate change 

 75 On November 1, 2013, President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13653 on 

preparing the United States for impacts of climate change. The EO directs U.S. federal 

agencies to take steps that will make it easier for American communities to strengthen 

their resilience to extreme weather and to prepare for other impacts of climate change. As 

a result, the Administration established the Council on Climate Preparedness and 

Resilience, an interagency working group. The Council includes an Infrastructure Working 

Group, co-chaired by the Department of Energy and the Department of Homeland 

Security that focuses on infrastructure resilience to climate change.

76 FERC and NRC have not developed agency adaptation plans. FERC officials told us 

that FERC is not subject to the requirement to develop an agency climate change 

adaptation plan under Executive Order 13514. NRC officials told us that the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) approved of NRC using its climate change adaptation policy 

statement in lieu of developing an adaptation plan. NERC is not a federal agency and, 

therefore, was not required to develop a climate change adaptation plan.

DOE and EPA Are Initiating 

Plans to Address Climate 

Change Risks Using an 

Agency-wide Approach
Page 54 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

resilience focus on updating departmental planning documents to include 

climate adaptation planning considerations. Thus, the details of how DOE 

will take action on climate change across its programs is not yet known, 

although DOE will continue to update and modify DOE’s adaptation plan 

as the understanding of climate change improves. Similarly, EPA’s initial 

adaptation plan states that EPA expects to improve its understanding of 

how to integrate climate change adaptation into its programs, policies, 

rules, and operations over time. However, EPA officials told us that they 

have not yet determined which rulemaking processes this will include.

In addition to developing climate change adaptation plans, DOE and EPA 

participate in the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force.

Executive Order 13514 called for federal agencies to participate actively 

in the already existing Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task 

Force.77

 77 The task force, which began meeting in Spring 2009, is co-chaired by CEQ, NOAA, and 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy and includes representatives from more than 

20 federal agencies and executive branch offices, including DOE and EPA. The task force 

was formed to develop federal recommendations for adapting to climate change impacts 

both domestically and internationally and to recommend key components to include in a 

national strategy. FERC, NRC, and NERC are not members of the task force.

According to agency officials, both DOE and EPA have been 

active members of the task force. For example, DOE’s Office of Energy 

Policy and Systems Analysis and Office of Science participate in task 

force working groups on water availability and climate science. According 

to DOE officials, much of the task force’s time is currently spent on 

sharing best practices and lessons learned about the implementation of 

adaptation efforts among agencies. Additionally, EPA officials told us that 

the agency leads a community of practice within the task force to bring 

federal agencies together to work on common issues and share lessons 

learned relating to climate change adaptation. As part of those meetings, 

task force members discuss available adaptation strategies and 

associated costs, as well as the costs of inaction and ways to finance 

adaptive measures. The task force’s most recent progress report, 

released in October 2011, reported that the federal government was 

working to improve the accessibility and utility of climate information and 

tools (e.g., climate models and early-warning systems) to meet the needs 

of decision makers. As the task force continues its work in this area, more 

information on how these efforts impact energy infrastructure decision 

makers may become available. The task force’s next update on federal 

adaptation progress is due in March 2014.
Page 55 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

A wide range of studies and years of industry experience have clearly 

demonstrated that U.S. energy infrastructure is at risk for damage and 

disruptions to service due to severe weather events. The damage from 

such events can impose large costs on the energy industry, as well as 

impact the economies of local communities and the nation. According to 

best available science, energy experts, as well as industry officials with 

whom we spoke, climate change could increase these risks unless steps 

are taken to adapt to expected changes. While uncertainty exists about 

the exact nature, magnitude, and timing of climate change, the 

responsibility for adapting energy infrastructure remains principally under 

the domain of the private sector. In this context, industry has and will 

continue to face choices about how best to respond to these risks.

At the same time, the federal government is just beginning to engage in 

more coordinated, multiagency efforts to better understand how climate 

change might impact federal facilities and their mission goals that 

intersect with the energy industry. As noted in our High Risk work, federal 

efforts related to infrastructure are beginning to focus on ways to help 

state and local governments make more informed decisions to adapt to 

climate change. Nascent federal efforts related to the energy sector may, 

in a similar way, provide an opportunity for agencies to consider how they 

could best inform private sector choices to adapt to climate change.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 

Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission provided a 

general comment about the report which is summarized below and 

reprinted in appendix III. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also 

provided technical and clarifying comments as did DOE and EPA which 

we incorporated as appropriate. FERC indicated that it had no comments 

on the report.

In general, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission clarified that its 

regulations do not directly address the impacts of climate change on 

nuclear power plants but that it requires these plants to be protected 

against the effects of certain natural phenomena, such as flooding and 

high winds. In as much as climate change affects those natural 

phenomena on a site-specific basis, the Commission said that climate 

change effects are considered. In response to this comment, we added 

language to the report to clarify that the Commission believes climate 

Concluding 

Observations

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluations
Page 56 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

changes is taken into consideration as part of its review of natural 

phenomenon.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to DOE, EPA, FERC, and 

NRC and other interested parties. The report also will be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512- 3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix IV.

Frank Rusco

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Page 57 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

List of Requesters

The Honorable Ron Wyden

Chairman

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable Al Franken

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Harkin

United States Senate

The Honorable Harry Reid

United States Senate

The Honorable Mark Udall

United States Senate
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 58 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

This report examines: (1) what is known about the potential impacts of 

climate change to U.S. energy infrastructure; (2) measures that can 

reduce climate-related risks and adapt the energy infrastructure to climate 

change; and (3) the role of the federal government in adapting energy 

infrastructure to the potential impacts of climate change and steps 

selected federal entities have taken toward adaptation.

To address all three objectives, we reviewed relevant studies and 

government reports, including previous GAO reports. To identify relevant 

studies and reports, we conducted a literature review with the assistance 

of a technical librarian. We searched various databases, such as 

ProQuest, PolicyFile, and Academic OneFile and focused on peer 

reviewed journals, government reports, trade and industry journals, and 

publications from research organizations, advocacy groups, and think 

tanks from 2003 to 2013. To identify knowledgeable stakeholders, we 

reviewed our prior climate change work and relevant outside reports to 

identify individuals with specific knowledge of climate change adaptation 

and energy infrastructure. We then interviewed academics and 

knowledgeable professional association members from the American Gas 

Association, America’s Wetland Foundation, the Center for Clean Air 

Policy, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Ceres, the 

Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Georgia Institute of 

Technology, Louisiana State University, the National Association of 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National Association of State 

Energy Officials, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and 

the Nature Conservancy.

To examine what is known about the impacts of climate change on U.S. 

energy infrastructure, we reviewed climate change impact assessments 

from the National Research Council (NRC), the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program (USGCRP), and relevant federal agencies. We 

identified these assessments using government and National Academies 

websites and prior GAO reports on climate change. We then evaluated 

whether the assessments fit within the scope of our work and contributed 

to the objectives of this report. For relevant assessments, we used inhouse scientific expertise to analyze the soundness of the methodological 

approaches they utilized, and we determined them to be sufficiently 

sound for our purposes. Relevant assessments are cited throughout this 

report, but the key assessments for this objective included the following:

• NRC, America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of 

Climate Change, Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change

(Washington, D.C.: 2010).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 59 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

• V. Bhatt, J. Eckmann, W. C. Horak, and T. J. Wilbanks, Possible 

Indirect Effects on Energy Production and Distribution in the United 

States in Effects of Climate Change on Energy Production and Use in 

the United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program and the subcommittee on Global Change Research 

(Washington, D.C..: 2007).

• Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds., 

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (New York, NY: 

Cambridge University Press, 2009).

• USGCRP, Draft Third National Climate Assessment Report, Chapter 

4 – Energy Supply and Use (January 2013).

• Department of Energy, Infrastructure Security and Energy 

Restoration, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 

Hardening and Resiliency U.S. Energy Industry Response to Recent 

Hurricane Seasons (August 16, 2010).

• Department of Energy, U.S. Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate 

Change and Extreme Weather, DOE/PI-0013 (July 2013).

Using those assessments, we examined potential impacts to the following 

infrastructure categories, representing four main stages of the energy 

supply chain: (1) resource extraction and processing infrastructure; (2) 

fuel transportation and storage infrastructure; (3) electricity generation 

infrastructure; and (4) electricity transmission and distribution 

infrastructure. We also examined broad, systemic factors that may 

amplify climate change impacts to energy infrastructure.

To identify and examine measures to reduce climate-related risks and 

adapt energy infrastructure to climate change, we analyzed relevant 

studies and government reports and interviewed knowledgeable 

stakeholders. We also identified and selected a nonprobability sample of 

four energy companies where the companies were taking steps to adapt 

their energy infrastructure to the potential impacts of climate change: 

Colonial Pipeline Company, Entergy Corporation, Florida Power and Light 

Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. To select our sample, 

we reviewed the relevant literature and interviewed knowledgeable 

stakeholders in order to compile a list of adaptive measures that had 

been undertaken by energy companies across the country. We divided 

our initial list of approximately 20 companies that had taken adaptive 

measures into categories based on geographic location and the type of 

climate-related risk that the adaptive measure addressed. We then 

selected companies that represented a range of geographic locations—
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 60 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

California, Louisiana, Florida, and the Mid-Atlantic— and a range of 

climate-related risks—decreased water availability, increased frequency 

and intensity of storms, and increased precipitation. Our sample selection 

also reflects infrastructure used in three of the four stages of the energy 

supply chain: petroleum pipelines; hydropower, fossil fuel and nuclear 

power plants; and transmission and distribution infrastructure. Because 

this was a nonprobability sample, findings from our examples cannot be 

generalized to all U.S. energy infrastructure; instead, they provide 

illustrative information about energy companies that have undertaken 

adaptation measures.

To examine the role of the federal government in adapting energy 

infrastructure to the potential impacts of climate change including, what 

steps selected federal entities have taken towards adaptation, we 

identified federal entities with key responsibilities related to energy 

infrastructure. We began by reviewing relevant literature and interviewing 

knowledgeable stakeholder groups. We also interviewed officials from: 

Department of Energy (DOE), Department of the Interior (DOI), 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Transportation 

(DOT), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation (NERC).1

Appendix II contains one-page summaries of the federal government’s 

role in energy infrastructure for DOE, EPA, FERC, and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, as well as NERC. To develop the summaries, 

we reviewed and synthesized publically available information about the 

Based on the information gathered from 

the literature and interviews, we compiled an initial list of 15 federal 

entities that had a connection to energy infrastructure and then narrowed 

that list to the five that have the most direct influence on energy 

infrastructure adaptation decisions: DOE, EPA, FERC, the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, and NERC.

 1 NERC is a not-for-profit corporation that has been certified by FERC as the Electric 

Reliability Organization in accordance with section 1211(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. As such, NERC is not a federal agency (see section 1211(b)), but we have included 

it in our discussion of federal action because it is responsible for developing and enforcing 

reliability standards for the North American bulk power system (the generation and highvoltage transmission portions of the electricity grid) and is subject to oversight by FERC 

within the United States and by Canadian regulatory authorities.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 61 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

entities from their websites, prior GAO reports, and other reports 

describing the federal government’s activities related to energy, as well as 

interviews with officials from the federal entities.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to January 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Summaries of Selected Federal 

Roles in Energy Infrastructure

Page 62 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Agency Department of Energy (DOE)

Mission Ensures America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear 

challenges through transformative science and technology solutions

Key activities related to 

energy infrastructure • Conducts research and development activities for the energy sector, including oil and gas, 

renewable ,and nuclear energy research

Conducts and Funds Technology Research

• Technology development and deployment programs designed to modernize the U.S. electric 

delivery system

• Applies DOE’s technical expertise to ensure the security, resiliency and survivability of key 

energy assets and critical energy infrastructure at home and abroad

Protects Critical Infrastructure

Collects and Analyzes Key Data on the Energy Sector

Manages the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Administers the Power Marketing Administrations

Incorporation of climate 

change adaptation

a

• Supports and funds research to understand the impact of climate change on energy production 

and to advance a predictive understanding of climate and inform development of sustainable 

solutions

• Conducts assessments of climate change on electric grid stability, water availability for energy 

production, and site selection for the next generation of renewable energy infrastructure

Types of energy 

infrastructure impacted

Electricity transmission and distribution systems and oil storage

Key programs and offices Office of Energy Policy and Systems, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of 

Science, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Energy 

Information Administration, and National Energy Technology Laboratory

Key legal authority for 

activities related to energy 

infrastructure

Energy Policy Act of 2005, Energy and Water Research Integration Act

Appendix II: Summaries of Selected Federal 

Roles in Energy Infrastructure
Appendix II: Summaries of Selected Federal 

Roles in Energy Infrastructure

Page 63 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Mission Protects human health and the environment

Key activities related to 

energy infrastructure • Emissions standards for power plants, petroleum refineries, and oil and gas extraction facilities

Regulates Hazardous Air Pollutants

• Discharge and treatment of wastewater from power plants, petroleum refineries, and oil and gas 

extraction facilities

Regulates Waste Discharges into U.S. Waters

Responds to Oil Spills

• Power plant cooling systems

Regulates Cooling Water Intake Structures

• Fossil fuel combustion waste

Regulates Solid and Hazardous Waste

• Crude oil and natural gas waste

• Underground wells associated with natural gas and oil production

Prevents Contamination of Underground Drinking Water Resources

Oversees Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

Incorporation of climate 

change adaptation

Reviews Preconstruction Permits for Natural Gas Pipelines

EPA has established agency-wide priority actions to begin integrating climate change adaptation into 

its programs, policies, rules and operations. The priorities are not specific to energy infrastructure, but 

some priority actions may impact EPA’s activities related to energy infrastructure as follows:

• Integrating climate change trend and scenario information into EPA rulemaking processes

• Factoring legal considerations into adaptation efforts–-EPA may need to evaluate the legal basis 

for considering climate change impacts in setting standards or issuing permits under the Clean 

Air Act and Clean Water Act

• Developing program and regional office implementation plans—each of the national program 

offices will develop its own plan that provides more detail on how it will integrate climate 

adaptation into its planning and work

Types of energy 

infrastructure impacted

Power plants, petroleum refineries, oil and gas extraction facilities, natural gas pipelines, and 

petroleum storage tanks

Key programs and offices Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Policy, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office 

of Water, and Underground Injection Control Program

Key legal authority for 

activities related to energy 

infrastructure

Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Oil Pollution Act, and 

Safe Drinking Water Act
Appendix II: Summaries of Selected Federal 

Roles in Energy Infrastructure

Page 64 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

Mission Assists consumers in obtaining reliable, efficient, and sustainable energy services at a reasonable 

cost through appropriate regulatory and market means

Key activities related to 

energy infrastructure • Regulates wholesale sales of electricity and transmission of electricity in interstate commerce

Electricity

• Oversees energy markets and mandatory reliability standards for the bulk power system

• Regulates interstate pipeline and storage facility siting, and abandonment

Natural Gas

• Regulates natural gas transportation in interstate commerce and establish rates, terms, and 

conditions for service

• Oversees siting of new LNG terminals

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

• Oversees proposals for and operation of LNG terminals

• Issues licenses for the construction of new hydropower projects and for the continuance of 

existing projects (relicensing)

Hydropower

• Oversees ongoing project operations, including dam safety inspections and environmental 

monitoring

• Establishes reasonable rates for transporting petroleum and petroleum products by pipeline

Oil

• Regulates oil pipeline companies engaged in interstate transportation

• Establishes equal service conditions to provide shippers with equal access to interstate pipeline 

transportation

Incorporation of climate 

change adaptation

• Reviews LNG terminal projects to determine if terminal operators have accounted for hurricane 

and flooding impacts

• Considers trends in historical hydrologic data as part of analysis of project operations and 

resource effects for hydropower facilities

Types of energy 

infrastructure impacted

Electricity transmission lines and facilities, interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities, LNG 

terminals, interstate oil pipelines, and hydropower plants

Key programs and offices Office of Electric Reliability, Office of Energy Infrastructure Security, Office of Energy Policy and 

Innovation, Office of Energy Projects, and Office of Energy Market Regulation

Key legal authority for 

activities related to energy 

infrastructure

Federal Power Act of 1935, Natural Gas Act of 1938, Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and Interstate Commerce Act
Appendix II: Summaries of Selected Federal 

Roles in Energy Infrastructure

Page 65 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Agency Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Mission Licenses and regulates the nation’s civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to 

ensure the adequate protection of public health and safety, promotes the common defense and 

security, and protects the environment

Key activities related to 

energy infrastructure • Issues licenses for all commercially owned nuclear power plants that produce electricity in the 

United States.

Reactor Licensing

• After the initial license is granted, the license may be amended, renewed, transferred, or 

otherwise modified, depending on activities that affect the reactor during its operating life.

• An amendment to an existing reactor operating license to allow a licensee to operate a reactor at 

a higher power level.

Power Uprates

Incorporation of climate 

change adaptation

Although not in response to climate change:

• Provides guidance for design requirements for hurricane wind speed protection at nuclear power 

plants

• Requires the operating fleet of nuclear power plants to compare their existing designs with the 

new plant requirement for protecting against flooding hazards

Types of energy 

infrastructure impacted

Nuclear power plants

Key programs and offices Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Office of New Reactors, Regional Offices, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research , and Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

Key legal authority for 

activities related to energy 

infrastructure

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
Appendix II: Summaries of Selected Federal 

Roles in Energy Infrastructure

Page 66 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Nongovernmental 

organization North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)

Mission Ensures the reliability of the North American bulk power system. NERC is the electric reliability 

organization certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish and enforce 

reliability standards for the bulk power system.

Key activities related to 

energy infrastructure

• Develops and enforces reliability standards

• Assesses adequacy of generation and transmission annually via a 10-year forecast and winter 

and summer forecasts

• Monitors the bulk power system and analyzes its performance

• Analyzes system disturbances and distributes lessons learned

• Operates Electricity Sector Information Sharing and Analysis Center

• Educates, trains, and certifies industry personnel

Incorporation of climate 

change adaptation

• Reflects projections of weather and other variables that potentially impact bulk system reliability 

as part of its adequacy assessments.

• Reports on system performance including demand response issues on a yearly basis. Weather 

forecasting uncertainties, in part reflecting climate change adaptation, are included as part of 

long-term load, generation, and transmission forecasting activities.

Types of energy 

infrastructure impacted

Electric power generation facilities, high-voltage electric transmission lines and facilities, and 

transmission and generation control centers

Key programs and offices Reliability Standards Development, Compliance and Enforcement, Critical Infrastructure Protection, 

Reliability Assessment and Performance Analysis, Reliability Risk Management, Event Analysis, and 

Operator Training

Key legal authority for 

activities related to energy 

infrastructure

Section 1211(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Section 215 of the Federal Power Act)

Source: GAO analysis

a

According DOE, its Power Marketing Administrations (PMA) provide electric power, largely 

hydropower from federal dams, to customers in 32 western, southwestern, and southeastern states 

and maintain an infrastructure that includes electrical substations, high-voltage transmission lines and 

towers, and power system control centers.
Appendix III: Comments from the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Page 67 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Appendix III: Comments from the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 68 GAO-14-74 Energy Infrastructure Adaptation

Frank Rusco, (202) 512-3841or ruscof@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Darnita Akers, Dr. Chuck 

Bausell, Elizabeth Curda, Dr. Dick Frankel, Cindy Gilbert, Stephanie 

Gaines, Dan Haas (Assistant Director), Jessica Lemke, Alison O’Neil, Dr. 

Timothy Persons, Dan Royer, and Barbara Timmerman made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(361434)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.